Media bias against City

[Ajm1985]

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

Compare that to the sensationalist headlines regarding Sterling though, such as the Record's "Obscene..." angle.

 

[franksinatra]

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?

Thanks for your response Exeter Blue. Unquestionably there are articles written about us on social media that could rightly be argued are 'click bait' but I do no think that is unique to City though. Talksport is a prime example of this sort of media, using extreme views, to provoke people to listen and call in. But do you think they solely target City? Within the mainstream media I am not sure. If the mainstream media wanted clicks of United fans I would imagine they would be best served attacking Liverpool and in all honesty I would be surprised if people bought a paper just to read a negative article about their rivals. More likely they would read if it featured their own clubs. Maybe that is just my mindset as I have no wish to read anything about United either way so can accept many may think differently.

 

[franksinatra]

Compare that to the sensationalist headlines regarding Sterling though, such as the Record's "Obscene..." angle.

I did not like that headline myself for the record. I did find another article about Di Maria and though not a headline it talked about his transfer fee and then compared him to 'other footballers who have cost an obscene amaount of money'. I can fully understand why that headline would annoy people though

 

[moomba]

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

I just think if you're going to use wages and fee to judge signings, surely you do it with everyone or no-one.

And where is the line drawn? Firmino isn't an insignificant signing.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Thanks for your response Exeter Blue. Unquestionably there are articles written about us on social media that could rightly be argued are 'click bait' but I do no think that is unique to City though. Talksport is a prime example of this sort of media, using extreme views, to provoke people to listen and call in. But do you think they solely target City? Within the mainstream media I am not sure. If the mainstream media wanted clicks of United fans I would imagine they would be best served attacking Liverpool and in all honesty I would be surprised if people bought a paper just to read a negative article about their rivals. More likely they would read if it featured their own clubs. Maybe that is just my mindset as I have no wish to read anything about United either way so can accept many may think differently.

No, they don't solely target City. I would however argue that of the Premier League's heavy hitters we are given far and away the hardest ride. We are a ready made whipping boy for organisations like Talksport, because we (and we alone) impact the most on the old guard. Every year we cost one of the dippers, the rags or the Arse, £50 odd million in lost chimps league revenue. We take 'their' trophies and we take 'their' money. Were Talksport, the Mail, the Sun etc, to focus on pitting Liverpool vs United, with a negative slant on one side or the other, they would risk alienating a significant part of their potential audience. Now that City have come along, gift wrapped, they no longer have to do this. It isn't of course absolute; there are plenty of positive articles out there about City just as there are negative ones about United, but they are far fewer in number compared to the other way round. And you only have to read through the 'comments' section on City related articles in say the Fail to learn that your mindset is not one that is universally shared, as the majority of posts come from supporters of our rivals! Your point about people not buying a newspaper specifically to read negative stories about other clubs has some merit (albeit that if a paper were to hammer United for a number of weeks, it would soon find its readership levels falling), but the reality is that a lot of newspapers' incomes these days comes from selling advertising space in their online versions, at which point we come back to click-bait. And as I said before, whether you wish to label that an agenda or bias is largely academic. It still involves us getting the shitty end of the stick

 

[Ajm1985]

I did not like that headline myself for the record. I did find another article about Di Maria and though not a headline it talked about his transfer fee and then compared him to 'other footballers who have cost an obscene amaount of money'. I can fully understand why that headline would annoy people though

If every large transfer was treated with the same disgust and disdain it would be fine; it is an obscene amount of money! The focus does always tend to be on the money though. I think with this transfer, aside from 1 or 2 articles, the papers have pandered to the greater numbers and have sought out negative opinions from ex-Liverpool players as click bait. We have an infuriatingly imbalanced media.

 

[George Hannah]

Unquestionably there are articles written about us on social media that could rightly be argued are 'click bait' but I do not think that is unique to City though. Talksport is a prime example of this sort of media, using extreme views, to provoke people to listen and call in. But do you think they solely target City? .....

Re-read what you have written there and spot the glaring logical error in terms of your argument. I have helped you with a bit of bold type.
Notice that nobody has said that TS and rest 'UNIQUELY' target City with their lies, smears and negative reporting - just that we get 'disproportionately' more than the others as Exeter Blue put it.
How many times does this simple fact have to be pointed out before you just shut up and go away.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

No, they don't solely target City. I would however argue that of the Premier League's heavy hitters we are given far and away the hardest ride. We are a ready made whipping boy for organisations like Talksport, because we (and we alone) impact the most on the old guard. Every year we cost one of the dippers, the rags or the Arse, £50 odd million in lost chimps league revenue. We take 'their' trophies and we take 'their' money. Were Talksport, the Mail, the Sun etc, to focus on pitting Liverpool vs United, with a negative slant on one side or the other, they risk alienating a significant part of their potential audience. Now that City have come along, gift wrapped, they no longer have to do this. It isn't of course absolute; there are plenty of positive articles out there about City just as there are negative ones about United, but they are few and far between compared to the other way round. And as I said before, whether you wish to label that an agenda or bias is largely academic.

you have the patience of a saint EB, i`d just say frank is talking bollox, but your way is the best, its just if they havent got the mental capacity to understand i try not to waste my breath 8-)

 

[SilverFox2]

I did not like that headline myself for the record. I did find another article about Di Maria and though not a headline it talked about his transfer fee and then compared him to 'other footballers who have cost an obscene amaount of money'. I can fully understand why that headline would annoy people though

Surely headlines are exactly that and are there to attract the buyer into buying that paper etc..
They frequently have a bias regarding the story they headline (never mind its biased content) and often infer exactly the opposite of that content irrespective of what the paper views as its news.

As we all know the headlines are written by circulation specialists not the original journo..

 

[gio's side step]

Thanks for your response Exeter Blue. Unquestionably there are articles written about us on social media that could rightly be argued are 'click bait' but I do no think that is unique to City though. Talksport is a prime example of this sort of media, using extreme views, to provoke people to listen and call in. But do you think they solely target City? Within the mainstream media I am not sure. If the mainstream media wanted clicks of United fans I would imagine they would be best served attacking Liverpool and in all honesty I would be surprised if people bought a paper just to read a negative article about their rivals. More likely they would read if it featured their own clubs. Maybe that is just my mindset as I have no wish to read anything about United either way so can accept many may think differently.

I think this 'agenda' thing is over simplified and to be honest extremely subjective and specific to various contexts.

In other words I would certainly argue that no objective truth of an agenda exists rather anyone can find individual examples of journalists or commentators presenting things in a certain manner with potential to be interpreted one way or the other.

Like all things - these examples require historicising. I would certainly argue that some elements of the British media are xenophobic and nostalgically romanticise the era's of Shankley, Busby, Clough etc and of course some of the high profile journalists grew up watching football in those era's. But we can also find examples of journalists who accept the neoliberal globalised product of the PL more obviously than others - some are extremely critical of FFP for example.

One personal point I would add is - the likes of the daily mail, the sun, sky sports news and talk sport develop particular marketing strategies which seek to maximise readership, viewership and listenership in a populist manner. Same with websites who simply seek to present stories which will result in the most visits to the site. Thus these might be deliberately provocative or nostalgic in tone to appease the largest fan bases = more money.

So for example on sky sports news last night - they ran a poll straight away about the Sterling (better deal for Liverpool vs better deal for City) topic. Of course, one might logically argue that Liverpool and City fans would have featured heavily in viewership during that period - and 'losing' a player might generate a more vociferous reaction than gaining a player. Add that poll to the broader discourse of 'state of modern football, money, greed and young mercenary players' which has been constantly reported over the past 7 days then it is no surprise to see the initial poll reveal somewhere around 80% of fans felt Liverpool got the better deal.

Also take into consideration Sky Sports News quickly got two former Liverpool players on (Aldridge and Thompson) to air views probably to appease the larger supporter base and keep maximum viewership - the daily mail have done the same today with Carragher.

It might have been nice to have had old Mike Summerbee on the phone to offer an alternative viewpoint ;-)