Media bias against City

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

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 ;-)

And the ToryGraph continues this morning with Sterling now costing £100m. Funny how the RagDipperMeedya always add in the wages for our players but only the transfer fee for everybody else! I don't remember di Maria getting the 'HOW MUCH!!!' treatment from journos and yet his transfer fee was 50% higher than Sterling.

 

[George Hannah]

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..

I'm afraid that's just not correct silvery one, subs routinely check with the writers despite the protestations we may hear from the latter later.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

And the ToryGraph continues this morning with Sterling now costing £100m. Funny how the RagDipperMeedya always add in the wages for our players but only the transfer fee for everybody else! I don't remember di Maria getting the 'HOW MUCH!!!' treatment from journos and yet his transfer fee was 50% higher than Sterling.

Think @franksinatra mentioned this briefly earlier in the thread, but in the lead up to United signing Di Maria, you had:

Metro: http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/18/manch...deal-for-real-madrids-angel-di-maria-4836364/

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

Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-for-real-madrid-winger--reports-9675346.html

Daily Star: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/fo...LVG-given-Benatia-deadline-Cuadrado-open-goal

All those papers quoting "£100m".

 

[George Hannah]

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....

on the contrary, evidence of a shared anti-City agenda abounds, proof positive of a conspiracy is going to be harder to find though.

 

[SilverFox2]

I'm afraid that's just not correct silvery one, subs routinely check with the writers despite the protestations we may hear from the latter later.

Thanks for correction George.
Who writes the headlines then is it the writer or is another member of staff ?

Either way, presumably the writer condones inferences to the articles that are often frankly incorrect and are sometimes exaggerations of the actual content ?

 

[George Hannah]

Thanks for correction George.
Who writes the headlines then is it the writer or is another member of staff ?

Either way, presumably the writer condones inferences to the articles that are often frankly incorrect and are sometimes exaggerations of the actual content ?

traditionally the sub editors provide a few takes and the editor takes his pick although with the online versions the sub-editor group has become all powerful

 

[Blue Mooner]

Listening to TalkSport yesterday afternoon and they were discussing none other than Fabian Delph (anyone else read any narrative suggesting that he has bottled it or how it is an indictment on the England team that an England regular doesn't have the confidence to join a top 4 club ? No me neither)

Anyway, I digress, as part of the discussion they touched on MIcah Richards and her co presenter mentioned what a bright talent Richards was when he first broke into the premier league at which point Georgie Bingham pipes up at the drop of a hat 'until Man City ruined him' at which point her more informed co presenter had to mention that he started out at City as a youth player ! Unbelievable.

The whole thing was just indicative of the narrative that they want to promote, but in this instance, the total naivety on the part of the presenter backfired on her big time and made her look a complete fool.

 

[Blue Mooner]

Think @franksinatra mentioned this briefly earlier in the thread, but in the lead up to United signing Di Maria, you had:

Metro: http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/18/manch...deal-for-real-madrids-angel-di-maria-4836364/

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

Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-for-real-madrid-winger--reports-9675346.html

Daily Star: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/fo...LVG-given-Benatia-deadline-Cuadrado-open-goal

All those papers quoting "£100m".

Sorry but in three of those (I couldn't access the Metro link strangely) two of the headlines quote 'package' which is a fundamental difference and makes clear that includes everything.

Secondly under the Daily Star headline they then go on very clearly to state: 'Louis van Gaal is prepared to fork out £50m for the transfer plus a further £50m in wages, agents and signing on fees for the Argentina star'.

So no, it isn't the same, and it isn't as widespread or pervasive in the way they present our transfers, routinely quoting the transfer including all elements of the deal including wages, transfer fees etc without making clear that the figures they are quoting includes these things,

 

[Nails]

I'm afraid that's just not correct silvery one, subs routinely check with the writers despite the protestations we may hear from the latter later.

Hmm, that's not my experience. The relevant editor gets final say on headlines, not the writer. I've never been consulted on a headline unless I've edited the section in which the piece was running.

 

[Nails]

Thanks for correction George.
Who writes the headlines then is it the writer or is another member of staff ?

Either way, presumably the writer condones inferences to the articles that are often frankly incorrect and are sometimes exaggerations of the actual content ?

On newspapers, the sub writes the headline, usually in conference with the section editor.