Media bias against City

[moomba]

I always say, the day Ferran Soriano is scratching around his office because he cannot get new partners and sponsors to get on board with us or Txiki is in his office kicking his bin in anger because Marco Reus decides not sign for us because they've all read a newspaper article that's dissuaded them from getting involved with our football club is the day we should bother about what the media says about us. But the reality is a lot of people in life take what the media says with a pinch of salt; Nissan SuisseGas Citibank etc. haven't taken a blind bit of notice of the British media, they've come on board without hesitation and we'll sign players this Summer who won't take what The Mirror or The Telegraph says about us into any consideration.

The more positive light a club is portrayed in the press, themore sponsors willing to come on board and the more they are prepared to pay.

I've hated this thread from the start. Fair enough people might well want to waste their time searching for derogatory stories about us or posting articles bigging up our rivals. But I honestly think this thread and the general feel of this outlook has made our fanbase overly-touchy, over-sensitive and paranoid - sometimes people are even looking for things that aren't even there.

Remember that "so fucking what?!", cool, down to Earth attitude we used to have in the 90s? Where has that gone when it comes to this? We used to be the thickest skinned set of fans going but reading this thread we're almost as bad as Arsenal fans these days or United fans in the 90s with their "everyone's against us" or "the media is pro-Liverpool/anti-United" moaning.

And besides, who the fuck wants to be loved by the media? I'd rather not, ta! It was always much better being the underground, anti-social, subculture in the 90s...and I'd fucking hate fake adulation and people blowing smoke up our arses when they don't want to or don't mean it now as well!

I don't want to be loved by the media, I want them to report accurately and in a balanced manner. I think it's good when examples of this are discussed on here. I've said before I wish the thread was named "shit journalism" rather than "agenda" as it is more what the thread is all about. Not sure why people get so upset when shit journalism relating to the club is brought up.

 

[Wiggum22]

Allow me to explain my friend:
The rags are masters of PR - we all know that. What they are very good at is bringing on youth team players with 15 or 20 minutes left in a match when the result is
pretty well done and the game is over. On the odd the occassion they actually may start a youth team player from the off.
This then allows them to perpetuate the huge myth that they 'bring kids through' that they 'develop their own players' and they always 'give youth a chance' etc etc
Complete and utter bollocks that it is the fact is that the newspapers and media in general fall for it and lap it up by the bucket load and they generate huge positive media news and PR on the back of it.
This then portays the rags in a very positive manner to the wider world and beyond and armchair fans across the globe swallow it.
In recent times we have NOT done that. We have not done that at all. So we do not generate any positve PR from it and on occassions we have been criticised for it. However, we have allowed it to happpen. The fact being is that the rags are bloody good at PR and frankly speaking we are pretty lousy at it on the whole. (unless you consider the match day 'greeters' to be a masterstroke of PR?)
Therefore my argument is that there is no 'Agenda' against us just that there is no positive publicty for us. They are two different things.

That'd be Manchester United that have had a product of their Youth Academy involved in every first team match day squad for nearly 80 years.
That's close to 4,000 consecutive matches.

 

[ToorakBlue]

That'd be Manchester United that have had a product of their Youth Academy involved in every first team match day squad for nearly 80 years.
That's close to 4,000 consecutive matches.

Which is incorrect. They use John O'Shea in that stat and they bought him from Waterford at the age of 17 and sent him out on loan.

 

[Chris in London]

Which is incorrect. They use John O'Shea in that stat and they bought him from Waterford at the age of 17 and sent him out on loan.

Any yet how is it that a lie gets repeated and repeated until it is trotted out and taken as gospel truth?

 

[ToorakBlue]

Any yet how is it that a lie gets repeated and repeated until it is trotted out and taken as gospel truth?

Because they have a monster of a PR operation. Which is what I am attempting to get across. They are masters of generating positive PR be it truth or lies (they don't care, a bit
like Liverpool in that respect). In comparison our PR is feeble. So it's not an 'Agenda' it is the difference in the spin, PR & media relations of the two clubs - or lack of.

 

[Silva61]

Whilst there r 4 seats on board the gravy train we will always get a rough ride. Chelsea have had it relatively easy compared to us cos they wern't pushing any noses out of place, hence Arsenal happy to finish 4th every season. We will eventually b accepted but it will take a few more years and if clubs don't follow our model they will all b left behind. Probably only now with the easing of FFP the rest will start to get their arses into gear(now they will no longer b illegally protected) fortunately were business savy and already streets ahead.
What will b interesting in the future is if the PL lose a CL spot and the emergence of new power houses like WHU. Interesting times ahead.

 

[BUDTHEWISER]

Which is incorrect. They use John O'Shea in that stat and they bought him from Waterford at the age of 17 and sent him out on loan.

Haha rag boy just got schooled. Go do your home work son

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

I'm a full blown agendarist infact i think anyone who thinks there isn't one is deluding themselves or worse, lying trying to come across as unbiased, but the grief we get for not playing youth we deserve 100%, we could and should do so much more. Putting on Sinclair in the 87th minute with Ambrose on the bench when we were 3-0 up is indefensible.

 

[Chris in London]

Because they have a monster of a PR operation. Which is what I am attempting to get across. They are masters of generating positive PR be it truth or lies (they don't care, a bit
like Liverpool in that respect). In comparison our PR is feeble. So it's not an 'Agenda' it is the difference in the spin, PR & media relations of the two clubs - or lack of.

And so if your definition of 'agenda' encompasses a media that whores itself to that PR machine because of the commercial gain in doing so, Bob's your Uncle, there is your agenda.

Like every other poster in the thread, your view of whether the agenda exists depends on what you mean by the agenda.

 

[ToorakBlue]

And so if your definition of 'agenda' encompasses a media that whores itself to that PR machine because of the commercial gain in doing so, Bob's your Uncle, there is your agenda.

Like every other poster in the thread, your view of whether the agenda exists depends on what you mean by the agenda.

If I'm picking this up correctly the definition of 'Agenda' in this thread is that the media in general and as whole are anti Manchester City. I don't belive this to be the case. Nothing more. Nothing less.