Media bias against City

[Why Always Ste]

anyone think that setups don't happen on CNN/SKY etc go to youtube and type in crisis actors

This^

And also, in recent times more stories include Social Media "views" from "people" who apparently have an opinion related to the subject matter.
Please NOTE that it takes a few seconds to create a Twitter account.

I'm seeing stories in our national press quoting tweets for example criticising Raheem Sterling, with slurs and so on... Yet if you investigate some of these accounts you'll see that they have very few followers, follow plenty of other accounts and some of their followers are SEO/Social Media PR Agency firms.
So looking into it I'm assuming that some accounts are quickly created in reaction to a story to spice up and generate traffic equalling advertising revenue.... and the newspaper websites will pay Social Media PR Agency's to do this shit for them.

This is how these companies promote businesses and get tweets viral, except now they're manipulating news stories.

Same applies on here with apparent city fans pretending to be blues...

Phishing....

 

[George Hannah]

.... Whenever I see a negative article about City, yes it annoys me, but I see it in isolation, and it can be easily dismissed in isolation. An agenda on the other hand suggests something else entirely. ...

A truly spectacular failure to notice the obvious, Altzheimer would have you as a star exhibit

 

[Tim of the Oak]

anyone think that setups don't happen on CNN/SKY etc go to youtube and type in crisis actors

We've known this for years mate. I posted about how Sky had paid for the rent a mob MIBs outside Rooney's house when he was linked with us a few years ago. Sky even specified that the goons had to travel in a van!

 

[Ripleys_Cat]

A truly spectacular failure to notice the obvious, Altzheimer would have you as a star example

Well done. The fact that you can't even spell the word pretty much says it all.

 

[DiscoSteve]

ITV Granada Reports was shocking tonight - majoring on the £50m in wages Sterling was going to get over 5 years

exactly £25m LESS than baldy-rug-head Shrek not that that was mentioned

and how many players the rags could buy for £49m - and no mention was made that that was only 83% of an Ang-hell Di Maria Ugly Chops FFS

 

[Segga]

Anyone catch SSN then? Talking about a female footballer signing for chelsea.

Presenter "she may of cost a record amount BUT she's over 48.9M pound less then Raheem Sterling will be when he joins Man City"

 

[franksinatra]

We've known this for years mate. I posted about how Sky had paid for the rent a mob MIBs outside Rooney's house when he was linked with us a few years ago. Sky even specified that the goons had to travel in a van!

So Sky organised a group of football hooligans, provided Rooneys address so they could intimidate Rooney and his family?

Oh yes without forgetting they stipulated the mode of travel.

 

[Damocles]

Well done. The fact that you can't even spell the word pretty much says it all.

Just to point out that the guy you replied to is not exactly my best mate and we've had absolute riots on here

He's also 700 million times smarter than some moron like you who can't see a definitive trend in front of them and is reduced to pointing out spelling mistakes in the age of mobiles and tablets.

 

[Nails]

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.

Wow, I've never seen a headline from a sub. Mind you, there aren't many subs left now. MailOnline has zero subs. Not that you can tell, or anything. Ahem. I last edited a section five years ago. For whom did you work?

 

[Blue Mooner]

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.

It's all about 'context' my non City supporting friend.

This headline was produced the day after a shambolic performance against Swansea designed to 'pick up' the hordes of depressed rags after a sh*te performance.

'Look rags, you may be shite but your going to spend a sh*tload of money so don't panic.

Don't forget the rags spending is almost always positioned as 'virtuous' as they have earned it.

If you can't see the difference then it's because you don't want to.