Media Agenda against Man City, answer Yes or No

[Chris in London]

Your "simple test" of whether there is an agenda is just that, simple. It in no way demonstrates an agenda against City. What it does demonstrate is how the media in general operate when reporting ALL walks of life, not just sport. Good news does not sell newspapers or captivate viewers. It has ever been thus. To single out this idea as though it is particular to City is demonstrably not true, and dare I say a little paranoid.

If the coverage is not fair, it is by definition unfair. If you have a better word than "agenda" for coverage which has been consistently unfair over a sustained period, from a variety of sources who have their own reasons for adopting such a stance, have feel free to use it.

What singles out City - call this paranoia if you like, I don't really care if you do - is the volume of adverse coverage we have received. Yes that is because City is a Big News Story and was not prior to 2008, but whatever the reasons for it their does appear to be significantly more adverse criticism of City in the media than of any other club I can think of.

Of course none of this matters in that it didn't stop Silva from hitting THAT pass at the swamp, and there is no reason why media coverage should be fair. But it fucks me off that I can't listen to the radio, watch Sunday supplement, read a newspaper or switch on the internet without hearing my team being criticised, and it probably fucks me off because we've had three years of it. Judging from this thread, many other blues feel the same way.

 

[Mugatu]

No, there's no agenda. It's literally impossible as it needs the complicity of umpteen different private and public companies, hundreds of journalists and TV presenters and god knows who else. And all coming together for one world cause... not because they can defeat world hunger, not because together they can cure cancer.... no, these people form into a super media machine because they all agree that Manchester City are a bit bad and they would like to see us finish third.

What I can say with certainty is that football fora are paranoid places where tinfoil hats are aplenty. Chelsea, Everton, Spurs, Rags, Arsenal, Newcastle... they all have something in common, their forum members all believe that their team is the one that is subject of unfair press criticism.

 

[Scully]

Cook put himself out there to be shot at with some of his bumbling ways. Furthermore, I thought we were discussing a possible media agenda. I didnt realise it was the sun, mirror and mail that brought in the FFPR. Sorry but your point is totally confused.

ok. I say Yes, there is an agenda against the club. There have been numerous examples of the Media supporting this. I shouldn't really have bothered giving a couple of recent made up examples by the media. Perhaps you need to understand what an agenda is and why the media would or would not support one. That's not to say they don't ever change their allegiance, it's a bit like the Sun and the Tory party. It's not about bias, as everyones entitled to there own opinion, it's about made up bullshit and even changing the rules (Financial Fair Play) just for us.

 

[8luemoon]

No -

negative or bad news sells better than good news - compliments sell nothing

 

[rastus]

Yes they have, we are a natural target ie the richest club in the world.
We will be targeted from every angle as it maks space for media negativity.

However the more successful we are the less shite they can conjour up on a level playing field.

Our current success is already paying dividends eg last season every commentary mentioned the price of players, wages etc, this is now stated a lot less and the negaive punditds have to buy into what we are doing or look fuckin stupid.

 

[80s Shorts]

Your "simple test" of whether there is an agenda is just that, simple. It in no way demonstrates an agenda against City. What it does demonstrate is how the media in general operate when reporting ALL walks of life, not just sport. Good news does not sell newspapers or captivate viewers. It has ever been thus. To single out this idea as though it is particular to City is demonstrably not true, and dare I say a little paranoid.

If the coverage is not fair, it is by definition unfair. If you have a better word than "agenda" for coverage which has been consistently unfair over a sustained period, from a variety of sources who have their own reasons for adopting such a stance, have feel free to use it.

What singles out City - call this paranoia if you like, I don't really care if you do - is the volume of adverse coverage we have received. Yes that is because City is a Big News Story and was not prior to 2008, but whatever the reasons for it their does appear to be significantly more adverse criticism of City in the media than of any other club I can think of.

Of course none of this matters in that it didn't stop Silva from hitting THAT pass at the swamp, and there is no reason why media coverage should be fair. But it fucks me off that I can't listen to the radio, watch Sunday supplement, read a newspaper or switch on the internet without hearing my team being criticised, and it probably fucks me off because we've had three years of it. Judging from this thread, many other blues feel the same way.

Many more dont feel that way. Yours is a very insular view imo and the so -called "unfair" coverage is just the way the media operates. It is no worse than the reporting of other clubs. We are the new kids on the block and the big story, and as I said before bad news and gossip sells papers. Chelsea were reported upon in a similar way and look how they have dug their claws into Wenger and Arsenal this season. There is unfair coverage and reporting but it is nowhere near exclusive to City. Therefore there is no agenda.

 

[JULES]

Your "simple test" of whether there is an agenda is just that, simple. It in no way demonstrates an agenda against City. What it does demonstrate is how the media in general operate when reporting ALL walks of life, not just sport. Good news does not sell newspapers or captivate viewers. It has ever been thus. To single out this idea as though it is particular to City is demonstrably not true, and dare I say a little paranoid.

If the coverage is not fair, it is by definition unfair. If you have a better word than "agenda" for coverage which has been consistently unfair over a sustained period, from a variety of sources who have their own reasons for adopting such a stance, have feel free to use it.

What singles out City - call this paranoia if you like, I don't really care if you do - is the volume of adverse coverage we have received. Yes that is because City is a Big News Story and was not prior to 2008, but whatever the reasons for it their does appear to be significantly more adverse criticism of City in the media than of any other club I can think of.

Of course none of this matters in that it didn't stop Silva from hitting THAT pass at the swamp, and there is no reason why media coverage should be fair. But it fucks me off that I can't listen to the radio, watch Sunday supplement, read a newspaper or switch on the internet without hearing my team being criticised, and it probably fucks me off because we've had three years of it. Judging from this thread, many other blues feel the same way.

good post

 

[80s Shorts]

Your "simple test" of whether there is an agenda is just that, simple. It in no way demonstrates an agenda against City. What it does demonstrate is how the media in general operate when reporting ALL walks of life, not just sport. Good news does not sell newspapers or captivate viewers. It has ever been thus. To single out this idea as though it is particular to City is demonstrably not true, and dare I say a little paranoid.

If the coverage is not fair, it is by definition unfair. If you have a better word than "agenda" for coverage which has been consistently unfair over a sustained period, from a variety of sources who have their own reasons for adopting such a stance, have feel free to use it.

What singles out City - call this paranoia if you like, I don't really care if you do - is the volume of adverse coverage we have received. Yes that is because City is a Big News Story and was not prior to 2008, but whatever the reasons for it their does appear to be significantly more adverse criticism of City in the media than of any other club I can think of.

Of course none of this matters in that it didn't stop Silva from hitting THAT pass at the swamp, and there is no reason why media coverage should be fair. But it fucks me off that I can't listen to the radio, watch Sunday supplement, read a newspaper or switch on the internet without hearing my team being criticised, and it probably fucks me off because we've had three years of it. Judging from this thread, many other blues feel the same way.

Many more dont feel that way. Yours is a very insular view imo and the so -called "unfair" coverage is just the way the media operates. It is no worse than the reporting of other clubs. We are the new kids on the block and the big story, and as I said before bad news and gossip sells papers. Chelsea were reported upon in a similar way and look how they have dug their claws into Wenger and Arsenal this season. There is unfair coverage and reporting but it is nowhere near exclusive to City. Therefore there is no agenda.

 

[SuperKevinHorlock]

100% yes.

 

[Watching_Swede]

No