Media bias against City

[Centurions]

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.

What are the odds of Sly running the same poll after the end of the season when we can all see how he did and what (if any) medals he collected?

I'd say zero sounds about right.

 

[BusterPhillips]

The agenda is not personal it's business - that's what I was told by the late Brian Woolnough

The majority if the English demographic that watch sky, buy papers and read the internet are the Scum, Gooners, Bin Dippers and Chavs.. They all hate City, slagging off City sells papers.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

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".

Ah, but when the RagDipperMeedya quote £100m for di Maria, the implication is that at £67m MANUre are getting the star of the World Cup for a song and it would be the Swamp Donkeys who are the only ones with financial clout to come to £100m, whereas when our £100m is quoted the undercurrent is that we've paid through the nose for some bit of a kid who's only worth jackshit, and we are just moneyspunkers!

 

[west didsblue]

Have any media outlets pointed out that the dippers are only getting £35M for Sterling taking into account the £9M going to QPR and the £5M add ons that aren't guaranteed?

Thought not.

 

[Shirley]

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".

I've not read any of the articles you have quoted but I'm certain the £100 million is not described as derogatory or headlined obscene as our £100 million is, plus Di Maria is probably a world star not a money grabbing mercenary.
That's the difference if you really want to listen.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[K-Bo]

Agree with others, nothing can really be done about it at this point. there aren't enough pro-city or even neutral voices in the media to counteract liverpool over this deal, they can shout louder and more often. City fans might just have to come to terms with being hated and find it empowering.

 

[BlueAnorak]

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.

There is a very pronounced difference though. In the above cases the word PACKAGE is used. And the above articles are generally the SECONDARY articles when the player is rolled out to the public not the INITIAL TRANSFER ARTICLE. WIth City the word PACKAGE is not used and the the total sum is used in the initial article.

Glad to be of help.

 

[BlueAnorak]

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.

But this article would have said a more accurate £130m for the total package if he had become a City player. Along with more derogative tone to the article along the lines of "City are ruining football with their money".

Glad to be of help.

 

[Damocles]

Some more totally unbiased reporting that I'm sure every other club gets

 

[moomba]

Some more totally unbiased reporting that I'm sure every other club gets

To be fair the comment about Sterling having to adapt to playing at a big club is likely to send a few dippers over the edge as well.