Media bias against City

[moomba]

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.

Theres no one definition of agenda in the thread. It means different things to different people. Thread would be much better if the word was banned.

 

[ToorakBlue]

Theres no one definition of agenda in the thread. It means different things to different people. Thread would be much better if the word was banned.

Exactly. I was simply articulating what the definition of 'Agenda' I have. It will be different for other posters. It may well be different for you?
Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. It is simply discussion and debate.

 

[its grim up north]

Lets face it , if you gatecrash the party you'll cop it, last night when Juve scored, the commentator said the Barca goalie was very unlucky when he parried the
initial shot into the path of the scorer,but when Buffon did exactly the same when Suarez scored the commentater said he was poor and he should have done better. Also Mesi went to control a ball and instead of his foot it hit his knee and skewed off, only for the commentator to say Mesi got an awkward bounce. Its a fact of life that there are favourites.

 

[franksinatra]

Theres no one definition of agenda in the thread. It means different things to different people. Thread would be much better if the word was banned.

That somes up the craziness of the thread in a nutshell.

The allegation of an 'agenda' within this thread has been thrown across so many organisations, individuals, media outlets it borders on the ridiculous and incredibly when individuals such as myself refute the allegation, encompassing so many differing organisations, we get accused of being trolls.

As you have said the 'agenda' means different things to different people. This in itself highlights that people who genuinely believe in its exsistence cannot even conclude who are the active participants, yet they throw scorn on others who question it.

In effect expecting individuals to believe its exsistence yet not defining the parameters of the collusion or stating explicitly those involved.

The typical allegation is the media. Who in the media? I have read the Daily Mail, so that includes Martin Samuel?, Daily Mirror, Simon Mullock then? or even Sky, which, if memory serves me correct invested in the club once upon a time , and I guess as one of their lead anchors Mike Wedderburn must be culpable within this narrative of undermining the club.

There is plenty of shite Journalism out there. Some of it ill-informed and by individuals who do not like us. Ive never disputed that. I have also seen plenty of shite refereeing, both for and against but with no tangible evidence im not going to accuse a whole profession of being corrupt.

 

[moomba]

That somes up the craziness of the thread in a nutshell.

The allegation of an 'agenda' within this thread has been thrown across so many organisations, individuals, media outlets it borders on the ridiculous and incredibly when individuals such as myself refute the allegation, encompassing so many differing organisations, we get accused of being trolls.

As you have said the 'agenda' means different things to different people. This in itself highlights that people who genuinely believe in its exsistence cannot even conclude who are the active participants, yet they throw scorn on others who question it.

In effect expecting individuals to believe its exsistence yet not defining the parameters of the collusion or stating explicitly those involved.

The typical allegation is the media. Who in the media? I have read the Daily Mail, so that includes Martin Samuel?, Daily Mirror, Simon Mullock then? or even Sky, which, if memory serves me correct invested in the club once upon a time , and I guess as one of their lead anchors Mike Wedderburn must be culpable within this narrative of undermining the club.

There is plenty of shite Journalism out there. Some of it ill-informed and by individuals who do not like us. Ive never disputed that. I have also seen plenty of shite refereeing, both for and against but with no tangible evidence im not going to accuse a whole profession of being corrupt.

I would say that you are like a previous poster that consistently argued there was no agenda (by your definition) whether anyone was saying there was or not.

In doing so you defend every bit of bad, negative, unbalanced or unfair coverage we get.

This poster even admitted he'd argue a point he didnt believe in himself because he was so entrenched in proving there was no agenda.

 

[Wiggum22]

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.

John OShea played in the United Academy aged 15 and 16 whilst still living in Ireland and finalising his studies.
He played for Waterford FC but not their first team. He signed for United aged 16 and arrived at 17, playing in the academy for 2 seasons.

 

[ccr]

Was that in 1888 or 1902 ?

 

[squirtyflower]

just not its a systematic campaign

and i would have agreed
however a member of the press corps admitted that, during Mancini's reign, they did collude on articles and to spin a particular slant which didn't line up with reality

 

[Bill]

Absolutely bang on.

It isn't Manchester City Football Club the media have a problem with, we could be anyone, we just happen to be the club taken over by a Sheikh and just happen not to be United or Liverpool.

Plus the media don't have to report with balance and fairness. In what parallel universe has the media ever been like that? When mass media hit in the 1950-60s people like Malcolm X saw the media was just peddling out shit to please the masses right from the start, and it's never changed, and it never will, and it never has to, and it never should do. That's not what it's there for. Mass media is there to make the masses feel secure in their world, to make the masses gossip about scandles outside their world and to make money from their interest in it all. They're alright, Jack! and the rest of us can make our own minds up through our insight and intelligence on matters as we can think for ourselves and we can live without being told what we should think and how we should act.

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.

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 thought it may be an idea to go back to the first post in this thread and the reason for my issue when posting it.

SSN shows a clip of neymar speaking about his injury and the forthcoming final. a caption pops up as they do introducing him as neymar, barcalona and brazil.
the next player interviewed is aguero. now his caption just reads argentina. no mention of his club side. anyone got any idea why they would mention one players club, during a world cup, and not the other? the next guy interviewed is maxi rodriguez, yes you guess it from newels old boys and argentina. why's that then?

genuine question.[/QUOTE

i'm not sure if the question has ever been answered.

 

[franksinatra]

and i would have agreed
however a member of the press corps admitted that, during Mancini's reign, they did collude on articles and to spin a particular slant which didn't line up with reality

Well that would certainly provide weight to the argument. Have you got a link to that?