hisroyalblueness said:
Re the guardian; walked to my newsagents this morning and cancelled my regular order . . voted my feet as they say.
.....What the guardian doesn't recognise is that City fans are loyal to the cause, are delighted with progress, are signed up to Mancini and are not going to be put off by some poorly aimed sniping from a tw@ with a blunt pencil and a dull mind.
If you have a look at the Guardian site since the game there have been three more articles/blogs after the game - all of which were more positive about City than Arsenal.
The point made earlier about Glendenning being an online journo is spot on. The Guardian is MUCH more popular online that it ever was in print. This was initially because they were well ahead of the game compared to other newspapers, but now that everyone is online, they really are rating whores.
The blogs fluctuate in a good cop/bad cop way so to generate comments and extra page views, and the minute by minutes are intended to be much more "interesting" than the BBC online coverage. Glendenning is the resident loud mouth and he'd no doubt be laughing away to himself that anyone takes his opinion seriously.
The Guardian coverage of city has been pretty even handed overall - but the online work takes reporting away from the middle ground and you end up with OTT negative articles followed by OTT positive ones.
I
