Media bias against City

[franksinatra]

if you can find 3 other papers that reported it like that I'd agree..

There is a link a few pages back. I think four were referenced

 

[franksinatra]

I haven't read the whole thread so it may have been covered already.
Frank, how do you think utd would feel if their champions league matches were commentated on by a Blue, with
2 ex blues as pundits ?
We get Tyldesley, Keane and Scholes handing out sly digs.
It wouldn't happen would it?

Good question mate. I do not think it will happen at this moment but it would not surprise me to see Joe Hart have that type of role in years to come.

Sadly mate over the 'premiership years' we have had few standout english players who have become ingrained in the publics consciousness.

There are the likes of Niall Quinn who commentate but a lot who think there is a bias think he is against us also.

To answer the question specifically they would probably not like it. I felt the same about Neville but now quite like hearing his view. So that view can be altered dependent upon the individual commentating

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

I haven't read the whole thread so it may have been covered already.
Frank, how do you think utd would feel if their champions league matches were commentated on by a Blue, with
2 ex blues as pundits ?
We get Tyldesley, Keane and Scholes handing out sly digs.
It wouldn't happen would it?

Whilst I can see your point to an extent, United fans (certainly a few lads I know) always curse at the telly when they have to put up with at least one Liverpool pundit for almost every game - whether it be Redknapp, Souness, McManaman, Carragher (though, like rival fans' opinions on Neville, they don't find him too bad) formerly Hansen & Lawrenson, and more recently Danny Murphy.

 

[George Hannah]

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?

Well Nails, if subs don't liaise with the writers anymore I suppose it's one less thing for them to worry about. When I said I was 'long retired' I meant it! In fact I started straight from school at 16 as an indentured child reporter for the Thomson group the early 60s. Worked for the Express Group in Stockport and Wilmslow and the Salford City Reporter before landing a reporter berth at the Guardian. Then came the student riots and I was so impressed I chucked the job and resumed my formal education at the LSE. When I emerged in the early 70s a sadder and desperate man I couldn't get a newspaper staff job and tried freelancing supplemented by full time work as a copywriter. That was a real downer so I took the Queen's shilling and became a DES civil servant for the rest of my working life. Haven't had a Press Card since 1968 but I'm still in the NUJ though!

 

[franksinatra]

Well Nails, if subs don't liaise with the writers anymore I suppose it's one less thing for them to worry about. When I said I was 'long retired' I meant it! In fact I started straight from school at 16 as an indentured child reporter for the Thomson group the early 60s. Worked for the Express Group in Stockport and Wilmslow and the Salford City Reporter before landing a reporter berth at the Guardian. Then came the student riots and I was so impressed I chucked the job and resumed my formal education at the LSE. When I emerged in the early 70s a sadder and desperate man I couldn't get a newspaper staff job and tried freelancing supplemented by full time work as a copywriter. That was a real downer so I took the Queen's shilling and became a DES civil servant for the rest of my working life. Haven't had a Press Card since 1968 but I'm still in the NUJ though!

Public sector worker. I should have guessed. Sounds like an interesting working history

 

[Blue Mooner]

There is no difference. It's a case of you getting so determined to try and prove what you think is happening, that you will try to add whatever context to a situation to help that.

Imagine a United fan saying "It's all about context. It's all well and good saying the media are trying to please us United fans by declaring we're to launch a £100m attack on Real Madrid for Di Maria, but they couldn't resist getting in little jibes such as 'ailing Premier League club' or 'desperate for world class additions', and then, to rub salt in the wounds after our defeat, a piece by that clueless, soundbite loving Redknapp Jr saying 'even Mourinho & Paisley together would struggle to get this United side into the top 4".

Sorry, I didn't 'add' the context to the article 'the context was the context' ! ie sh*t performance lets talk about the rags spending a sh*t load of money to address it. The same happened late in Ferguson's reign when the rags powers were waning and the debt was preventing them spending.

The reporting here was after a shocking home defeat to Swansea first game of the season following them finishing 7th at the end of the previous season - so of course they were reporting pretty factually that the club was 'ailing' - to say anything other at that time would be tantamount to statements of 'Chemical Ali' proportions.

As has been said innumerable times no one is saying that no other club 'at times' gets negative stories against them. As in this instance it was fairly factual but accompanied with a corresponding upbeat message about the rags spending huge money to address the issue.

Conversely, day after day we are treated to abysmally one sided reporting - see the latest re the Sterling signing - and yet you and a couple of other deniers continue to try and justify this stuff ! Considering the mountain of evidence posted on here almost daily you really have to question what would need to happen to convince you of the anti-city agenda ?

 

[2sheikhs]

Di Maria may well have got headlines talking about a £100 million deal as a whole. The general gist of the article though was about utd flexing their muscles. In contrast, ours are about ruining football and being obscene.

Does anybody remember that nurse in Stockport that got accused of killing patients? The papers mentioned her father. He happened to drive for Finglands coach's........ "The same firm Manchester City use "
To their credit, it actually did stir our pr department into life that one. Not happy about City's name being dragged into a murder inquiry.

 

[simon23]

Apparently it was a blue wearing the rag shirt for a stag night.

how do we know that is true? where did that story that it was a blue wearing a ute top for a stag do come from?...i missed all of this yesterday after the original photos came out

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

Sorry, I didn't 'add' the context to the article 'the context was the context' ! ie sh*t performance lets talk about the rags spending a sh*t load of money to address it. The same happened late in Ferguson's reign when the rags powers were waning and the debt was preventing them spending.

The reporting here was after a shocking home defeat to Swansea first game of the season following them finishing 7th at the end of the previous season - so of course they were reporting pretty factually that the club was 'ailing' - to say anything other at that time would be tantamount to statements of 'Chemical Ali' proportions.

As has been said innumerable times no one is saying that no other club 'at times' gets negative stories against them. As in this instance it was fairly factual but accompanied with a corresponding upbeat message about the rags spending huge money to address the issue.

Conversely, day after day we are treated to abysmally one sided reporting - see the latest re the Sterling signing - and yet you and a couple of other deniers continue to try and justify this stuff ! Considering the mountain of evidence posted on here almost daily you really have to question what would need to happen to convince you of the anti-city agenda ?

I wouldn't say it was a corresponding upbeat message. I'd say, like you mention a number of times in your own post, that it was simply factual, as they did exactly what the headline said they would do - they bought him a week later.

For a newspaper to create a headline to appease the masses of United fans (as per your opinion) still suffering from the Swansea defeat, it then completely contradicts that aim of appeasement by also labeling them an ailing club, desperate for big name signings, who couldn't get top 4 even if they were managed by Mourinho & Paisley. What a way to appease a nation of United fans by screaming from the rooftops that they're going to spunk £100m on a single player whilst having the likes of Jamie Redknapp - someone who played for, and supports, their biggest rivals, describe just how shit they are.

 

[baildon blue]

I don't remember us getting negative press when Swales was our chairmen .
That was because Swales was doing a great job in destroying our club .
I do wonder if Swales was really a Manchester United fan .