silverback
Well-Known Member
You know, of course, that Custer always thought that he was the only one that was correct.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Media bias against City
- Thread starter JoeMercer'sWay
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Bill
Well-Known Member
You know, of course, that Custer always thought that he was the only one that was correct.
frank knows he's chatting shit. he's probably been nowhere near a game in his life. not a city match anyway.
deafmanstevo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 1,589
frank knows he's chatting shit. he's probably been nowhere near a game in his life. not a city match anyway.
Oh dear
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,146
frank knows he's chatting shit. he's probably been nowhere near a game in his life. not a city match anyway.
Everyone has had a decent debate today so I really do not see what your issue is. I get it you want to convince people I am not a City fan, because I have a different opinion to yours. It is pretty childish to be honest trying to divide people in such a way, even more surprising coming from a moderator. For the record I am a season ticket holder who travels over 450 miles for home games.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
You've got 'early leaver' written all over you, frank ;-)For the record I am a season ticket holder who travels over 450 miles for home games.
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,146
You've got 'early leaver' written all over you, frank ;-)
Ha ha. Chance would be a fine thing GDM. With all the fixture changes to Sunday I usually book the Monday off and head back that day or for Champs lge games, I attend, set off at 3 in the morning and head straight into work, impressing my previous bosses with my commitment to the job ;-).
cashmereundies
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 May 2011
- Messages
- 154
Do you live on a north Sea oil rig or something? I didn't think anywhere in the UK was 450 miles from City.
Probably means 450 mile round trip.Do you live on a north Sea oil rig or something? I didn't think anywhere in the UK was 450 miles from City.
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
Point 2. I suppose there is not an actual yardstick as you are quite right it is likely the enmity between the clubs is worse but similarly I would say Liverpool fans have a greater dislike for ourselves than Arsenal.
Point 3. Apparently, according to a poster on an Arsenal forum, Schurrle got booed as well with the poster stating 'those players should be applauded for leaving Chelsea not booed'. Maybe he also is wumming and needs professional help.
1. Not to anything like the same degree.
2. Perhaps he is. I would point out that the interpretation of one Arsenal fan on "a forum" as to why De Bruyne was being booed, hardly constitutes proof of why those present at the Emirates chose to react in that way though
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,146
Do you live on a north Sea oil rig or something? I didn't think anywhere in the UK was 450 miles from City.
Sorry round trip. 458 to be exact.
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,146
1. The point remains that your initial use of United as a comparison was disingenuous.
2. Perhaps he is. I would point out that the interpretation of one Arsenal fan on "a forum" as to why De Bruyne was being booed, hardly constitutes proof of why those present at the Emirates chose to react in that way though
Hi Exeter Blue,
1. Yes I would agree there is not a proper comparison either way to prove or disprove.
2. You are correct he may also be completely wrong, but I do have a feeling he may have a better idea than me or you and so supports my assertion. Sounds like Schurrle got booed also. Maybe it could be argued going to City was an aggravating factor also?
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
I do struggle with this thread. If we assume it's true and there is a concerted media bias against City, who is it by? This thread suggests it's by incompetent no-nothing journalists who work for filthy publications that no one should read. Now that seems an absolutely fine assertion.
Then, everyone who is then seething, because if this assertion seem to want these biased no nothing journalists to fawn over us and let us join the 'establishment'. Really?
The real question though, is why people on this forum (or anywhere else for that matter) expect any journalist and or newspaper to report news independently with no bias? They don't do that in any other area of their newspaper so why would they do it with football? They destroy 'celebrities', often because they can. They infringe on people's privacy. They have naked political bias in all stories they report.
The last myth to bust is they do it to get 'clicks'. If this was true the rags would only have negative stories as they are the most despised club by other fans. Their own fans would click as would everyone else's.
They mainly do it because they are, like many of us, lazy. They've had years of the 'top 4' and have cultivated that and we've come along and broken everything they know and are comfortable with. Change is usually a difficult and challenging process. Many 50 something year old journalists have only known Liverpool and Utd having long runs of success. Chelsea used to get the same treatment we get but were saved by the top 3 suddenly becoming the top 4 and they had Jose who they have all got a hard on for.
As Groucho Marx said; "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member".
Then, everyone who is then seething, because if this assertion seem to want these biased no nothing journalists to fawn over us and let us join the 'establishment'. Really?
The real question though, is why people on this forum (or anywhere else for that matter) expect any journalist and or newspaper to report news independently with no bias? They don't do that in any other area of their newspaper so why would they do it with football? They destroy 'celebrities', often because they can. They infringe on people's privacy. They have naked political bias in all stories they report.
The last myth to bust is they do it to get 'clicks'. If this was true the rags would only have negative stories as they are the most despised club by other fans. Their own fans would click as would everyone else's.
They mainly do it because they are, like many of us, lazy. They've had years of the 'top 4' and have cultivated that and we've come along and broken everything they know and are comfortable with. Change is usually a difficult and challenging process. Many 50 something year old journalists have only known Liverpool and Utd having long runs of success. Chelsea used to get the same treatment we get but were saved by the top 3 suddenly becoming the top 4 and they had Jose who they have all got a hard on for.
As Groucho Marx said; "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member".
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
Hi Exeter Blue,
1. Yes I would agree there is not a proper comparison either way to prove or disprove.
2. You are correct he may also be completely wrong, but I do have a feeling he may have a better idea than me or you and so supports my assertion. Sounds like Schurrle got booed also. Maybe it could be argued going to City was an aggravating factor also?
1. Perhaps Chelsea would serve as a better guide. Sufficient animosity between them and Liverpool I would say. Anyway, I'll take the liberty of stating then, that Sterling would not have received the same degree of vilification had he gone to Stamford Bridge as he's had for going to City. A propos nothing I'd chuck in the media's reaction to Maureen's bids for John Stones this week, as compared to the shit storm that accompanied our moves for Lescott 6 years ago.
2. Call it a draw? ;-)
cashmereundies
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 May 2011
- Messages
- 154
This is like school yard bullying, journalism has always been a small village and especially since Munich 1958 writers have had an affinity with the rags.During the sixties certain teams were aligned with music,show business and reporters moved in the same circles so in turn promoted the popularity of these clubs.I think I'de rather be in the position,media wise,we are now than as it was in the past when City equalled comedy value, anonymity and inferiority.I for one don't want to see my team turn up again at a restaurant like Belgium in the seventies,being greeted with a banner WELCOME MANCHESTER UNITED.So rather than bicker or argue for over 315 pages ignore it make up and do what we do best,stick together and support our club.
franksinatra
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 11,146
1. Perhaps Chelsea would serve as a better guide. Sufficient animosity between them and Liverpool I would say. Anyway, I'll take the liberty of stating then, that Sterling would not have received the same degree of vilification had he gone to Stamford Bridge as he's had for going to City. A propos nothing I'd chuck in the media's reaction to Maureen's bids for John Stones this week, as compared to the shit storm that accompanied our moves for Lescott 6 years ago.
2. Call it a draw? ;-)
You must be joking I am having the second point :-). One - One overall with the decider being the press reaction to LVG and Pellers next season?
Blueknows
Well-Known Member
They mainly do it because they are, like many of us, lazy. They've had years of the 'top 4' and have cultivated that and we've come along and broken everything they know and are comfortable with. Change is usually a difficult and challenging process. Many 50 something year old journalists have only known Liverpool and Utd having long runs of success. Chelsea used to get the same treatment we get but were saved by the top 3 suddenly becoming the top 4 and they had Jose who they have all got a hard on for.
And since we gatecrashed the party it has become a "Top 6"
Last edited:
You must be joking I am having the second point :-). One - One overall with the decider being the press reaction to LVG and Pellers next season?
Fuck me if this was still the agenda thread I would be thinking that you had one all of your own!!
Are you really seeing all this as you state or are you really just having a great time on a wind up?
goat boy
Well-Known Member
Next time you're watching a pundit and he only ever says 'manchester United' in relation to them, you've got a hint he's in their pocket. I mean never 'United'. Never 'man united'. Certainly never 'man yoo'. No matter or how wordy, unwieldy, or how out of step it sounds in context to how that pundit naturally speaks and turns a phrase. Listen for it. They want to co opt Manchester itself from the increasingly established threat that overshadows them on the pitch. Branding is everything.
Their marketing department and their influence on the industry at large is still miles ahead and starts from a position of strength. The dippers also hold a strong hand. If you believe their influence isn't abjectly negative on city as the other side of their own positive presentation agenda, you're off you're head. They're at war. Why aren't we..?
Their marketing department and their influence on the industry at large is still miles ahead and starts from a position of strength. The dippers also hold a strong hand. If you believe their influence isn't abjectly negative on city as the other side of their own positive presentation agenda, you're off you're head. They're at war. Why aren't we..?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.