Media bias against City

[hertsblue]

So predictable by the mirror. But this is what we are used to and the fact they never add wages on for other teams just shows the clear bias there is. When the scum signed di maria for 59 million plus 280k a week wages plus 7 million in add ons they reported this in the story but headline was utd sign him for 59 million. Completly different approach to us though

 

[Shirley]

Like I have said from the outset there are reporters who write negatively about us, I have never disputed this but it is millions of miles away from being an agenda. Without Sky, the global exposure, the TV deal and SKYs support when the club was on its uppers I very much doubt we would have the Sheiks involvement at the club.

Considering you seem to post only on this particular thread surely you have got the message by now, most posters agree there is no agenda as such but an obvious media bias against Manchester City.
Call it click bait or what ever you want, it is there and has been there since the take over.

 

[The_Maverick]

I blame Kelvin McKenzie.

If he hadn't apporved THAT headline then The Sun wouldn't be dropping it's pants at every opportunity to make up to the candle lighters. However in the meantime the other red tops grew their sales and want to stay in prime position. What better way to do it than kiss ass and denigrate the Manc's down the road.

However to me what is interesting is that when you go through a bit of reasearch from the Sun through to News UK, News Corp the list of assets for News Corp, what comes up? Yes the Times but also the Press Association.

PA is part of PA Group Limited, a private company with 27 shareholders, most of whom are national and regional newspaper publishers. The biggest shareholders are Associated Newspaper Holdings Limited, News International plc, Trinity Mirror plc and United Business Media plc

No wonder when it's so inbread that it takes so much effort to change.

Oh I would like to make there is a distinction between PA and Associated Press (AP)

 

[hutton who blue]

Like I have said from the outset there are reporters who write negatively about us, I have never disputed this but it is millions of miles away from being an agenda. Without Sky, the global exposure, the TV deal and SKYs support when the club was on its uppers I very much doubt we would have the Sheiks involvement at the club.

Sheik Mansour, thank you very much. And we are Manchester City not "the club". Thank you very much.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I have read that article and in my opinion it does not read as you suggest. Yes many Liverpool pundits have been in the press moaning and similarly the likes of Ollie Holt, Jimmy Bullard, John Terry, the metro article I linked earlier were stating a move to City would be good for Raheem. It is swings and roundabouts, some positive some negative.

I take it as you have linked the Mirror you think this paper is anti-City? If so, does that include Simon Mullock? If you find people writing negatively about us challenge it pal, if it is a load of rubbish, as without question poorly wriiten and lazy journalism is written about us.

You can rationalise it all down to the bias of individual journalists (of whom the number that are pro-City, are dwarfed by those supporting clubs adversely affected by our rise) if you like, and the truth of your assertion is undeniable, but the reality is that it doesn't matter if it's an agenda or bias, because either way we get disproportionately clobbered. The inherent bias of certain hacks notwithstanding though, are you suggesting that there are no articles about us, and no deliberately disrespectful tones used, that aren't written specifically for target audiences? If you accept that there are, then the boundary lines between agenda and bias become very blurred do they not?

 

[manimanc]

Spot the difference with sky sports .
We agree a fee for sterling and they pull every ex Liverpool player out the woodwork to put across their unbiased, unblinkered and neutral opinion on things.
The rags sign schweinsteiger and schneiderlin and they've signed the best two midfielders in the world, no ex saints players saying that he'll ruin his career or that it was a great deal getting that much for him.
They don't have to try to be bitter towards us now as it's second nature to them.

 

[George Hannah]

Like I have said from the outset there are reporters who write negatively about us, I have never disputed this but it is millions of miles away from being an agenda. Without Sky, the global exposure, the TV deal and SKYs support when the club was on its uppers I very much doubt we would have the Sheiks involvement at the club.

You are definitely struggling to understand the importance of the weight of evidence in this debate, perhaps a picture would help explain how a rational person is able to make an informed judgement on the balance of probability

 

[moomba]

I had a google yesterday to see how much Firmino was earning. Found nothing really, no wage predictions, no adding 5 years of wages to his transfer fee.

Found it a bit odd, obviously notice it with our players and wouldnt expect it to be highlighted as much with others. But not a peep.

 

[aguero93:20]

Compare and contrast to news just in.................
Southampton midfielder Morgan Schneiderlin is having a medical ahead of a proposed move to Manchester United for a fee in excess of £25m.

It'd be £75m including fee wages add ons and future contract renewals with us.

 

[franksinatra]

I had a google yesterday to see how much Firmino was earning. Found nothing really, no wage predictions, no adding 5 years of wages to his transfer fee.

Found it a bit odd, obviously notice it with our players and wouldnt expect it to be highlighted as much with others. But not a peep.

I think it gets highlighted on the largest transfers as naturally the money involved is at its greatest. I did post this on the previous page regarding Di Maria when he signed for United.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-Madrid-star-Angel-Di-Maria-Old-Trafford.html