Media bias against City

[franksinatra]

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".

Thank you Latics SJK. It is interesting of how many times on the last couple of pages of this thread that exact comparison has been made even though as the links show it was widely reported to include the overall package.

It is not surprising though as Manchester City is our football club and naturally we are sensitised to newspaper articles, criticisms and so forth about our club because we have an interest and passion for the subject matter.

That in itself lends itself to the fundamental belief the majority of fan bases have that the media are against them. We notice the 100 million deal about Sterling and fail to notice similar articles written about our rivals.

I am no lover of the press. The majority of it is garbage and represents the dumbing-down of society but do I think there is a movement or collusion. No

Do we get disproprtionately negatively represented I can accept Exeter Blues and others view that its worthy of debate.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

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,

That's because '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' would make for a rather lengthy headline. So, instead, they go with "£100m Di Maria bid" to grab the readers attention before outlining what the £100m actually refers to.

Similarly to this one:

Now, of course, you can nitpick through the respective headlines all you want, but "£100m Di Maria" & "£100m in Sterling" are about as similar as you can get. You can also see what £100m actually refers to in both articles within the first couple of sentences.

 

[George Hannah]

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.

I am long retired from the fray but keep in touch with a few current if elderly newspaper hacks. Maybe these courtesies are no longer followed in some or perhaps most papers - times change. It used to be standard practice for the sub to copy the headlines to the writer for comment but I never suggested that the editor didn't have the final say. If you don't get the opportunity to see how they've topped your piece it's a poor show.

 

[SilverFox2]

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

Thanks again George.

So effectively the editor is likely to decide the headline and he/she presents that article in whatever fashion they feel will catch the potential purchasing 'eye' and it often is not representative of the possibly balanced article.

My point was that even a balanced article could have skew to sell it (or editor bias) and even a skewed article could be further skewed by creative headlines .

 

[George Hannah]

Thanks again George.

So effectively the editor is likely to decide the headline and he/she presents that article in whatever fashion they feel will catch the potential purchasing 'eye' and it often is not representative of the possibly balanced article.

My point was that even a balanced article could have skew to sell it (or editor bias) and even a skewed article could be further skewed by creative headlines .

Very true

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

Its not going to change any time soon so I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[SilverFox2]

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

Thanks Nails, no personal experience just things I hear or read so I appreciate your input.

 

[5948947]

sad bastards on sky keep showing that stupid fucking poll and going on about it like its the only thing that matters lmao

 

[middleton___blue]

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 ;-)

Excellent post. They'll always find a sly little hints to share in news stories and internet columns to condemn city as being "just a club with big pockets" to it's reader and viewers (mainly rags and dippers)

They would NEVER get any ex city players views because this would add a different opinion to the masses and is against what sky et al wants to air and what they want there viewers/clickers to soak up as it wouldn't be 'anti city' which seems to be the norm.

I seriously think we should start banning media and journalists from the club, period.

 

[Bentheblue]

I'm not an agenda-ist as such (except when it comes to FFP), but there's clearly a media bias against the club. Just posted this in the Sterling thread, but relevant here:

I think Ric's post of a few days ago is worth repeating. I notice that it was not commented on by the non agendaists and it would be interesting to get their views.