Media bias against City

[Deepest Blue]

The point is that there's only so much our PR team can do and they're playing a long game, which is the way the Sheikh and his people want it.

The world is full of short-sighted 'erberts who know nothing about patient strategies. At least ours are well meaning.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I meant in general 'Media bias against City' nothing is ever countered, as someone has posted we need a Rottweiler not a Labrador, get them off their fat arses and earn their corn

We had one of those in Paul Tyrrell and we were laughed at. Someone (who posts on here) published a not terribly complimentary piece in the MCIVTA e-zine and Tyrrell threatened legal action. Some journalists found out about this and ripped Tyrrell a new one so he had no choice but to back down. Those journos told me they were only too glad to have a go at him. Now we didn't really matter in those days but imagine if we had.

These days we do matter but you also have to understand Arab culture to understand how we work. Arabs will generally go out of their way not to cause offence and will rarely criticise others in public. Causing loss of face or honour is considered a serious matter plus privacy in personal matters (theirs and yours) is sacrosanct. That's why any stories that are seen to violate those principles as far as the Sheikh and his family are concerned, will get the full force of our PR team's response. But we will not stoop to the level of morons like John Cross.

 

[yankcitizen76]

Actually, all this negative publicity DOES have a positive effect as it helps with sports branding and giving our squad an identity. When I was a kid the Oakland/LA Raiders may have been the most hated franchise in American sports history. Fans spat on them, the press wrote scathing reviews and other teams constantly complained to the league about their conduct. It galvanized the owner Al Davis, the coaches and the players into an "Us against the World" mentality. Sports doesn't have that kind of aura about it any more. Players just go out and put on a shift and its over. I wish teams still had identities with the press rather than trying to have squeaky clean images on social media. Nowadays everything is safe and placid and PC.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

How many times do people like you need to be told? What exactly can the PR team do to stop John Cross writing a story like that? (Actually he didn't write that headline and tagline in all probability as it would have been a sub-editor). They don't have someone sitting behind every journalist's shoulder and can't stop anyone writing anything. They have no legal recourse unless the article is defamatory. They could ban people, as the pisscan used to do, but that won't get us any better press as it doesn't stop people writing nasty things about us. In fact it probably gets us even worse press.

A few years ago, following the takeover, I was at a meeting at the club at which Vicky Kloss was present and sounded off in much the same way that you did. She sat down with me afterwards and explained things to me. First and foremost, the PR agenda is dictated by Abu Dhabi, specifically Simon Pearce. And that agenda is 'keep it low key'. She said that they know they can't stop the sort of shit we often get but, if they feel the writer has gone too far, they'll take it up with them. If they're not happy with his or her response then they go to the editor. In some cases they will then instruct solicitors and at that point the paper will often back down and quietly pay a significant sum to charity. In one case only that I'm aware of, we've gone to court and we won (I think it was against The Sun) when the paper cast The Sheikh in a bad light and wrote something that was patently.

They've concentrated on the more intelligent journalists and quietly brought them onside. And, as others have also said, we restrict access now unless we can influence the agenda. So if you want an interview with Kompany, you have to write something complimentary about the CFA ,City in the Community or something that oresents us in a good light but, again, we can't force them to do that. I had a journalist complain to me that City and Pellegrini in particular gave them nothing these days. Eventually, as we get more popular, they'll come round and fawn over us in the way they do over the rags and Liverpool but until then, we'll just have to take the shit.

The point is that there's only so much our PR team can do and they're playing a long game, which is the way the Sheikh and his people want it.

i`d suggest we flood the lazy cunts with positive stories like the twats who reside at the trafford shithole do,

to some extent the negative stuff must have an adverse effect on potential new supporters when forming an opinion of our club.

wont be long now colin and we`ll be back watching instead of wringing our hands

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

i`d suggest we flood the lazy cunts with positive stories like the twats who reside at the trafford shithole do,

to some extent the negative stuff must have an adverse effect on potential new supporters when forming an opinion of our club.

We can't force them to print those stories though. Currently, playing to the armchair rag gallery is seen as good business sense, in the same way firms schmooze their big clients. When the trains from London are filled with blue instead of red, we'll get better press.

And as for having an adverse effect on potential new supporters, you and I must be of a similar age so we've swallowed some shit for being blues down the years haven't we? There's a lot of anecdotal evidence that kids are starting to support us in large numbers so in many ways, this negative media will harden them, in the same way our unwavering support for an unsuccessful team hardened us.

 

[SilverFox2]

Come on lets be honest this is the no news part of the year with papers struggling for market share in a total media market that is changing via the digital revolution (thanks Marvin for your posts on this).
Quite proud of the way we conduct ourselves really but I do understand the need to protest about the way they have identified anti City articles as the way to attract their main purchasing customers.

There is no obligation to buy or read or view this type of headline advertising especially if it upsets us but they have their reasons because the more it upsets us as City fans the more likely it is to be successful to attract new non City purchases etc..

We don't have to agree with the journo and his team, we just have to understand why the headline has been considered ideal for printing.

Let those who are frightened of the rise and rise of City buy the anti City slant to satisfy their lack of understanding regarding how a real business plan works. It will stop them asking why their own owners don't do the same which is the question they should be asking.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Good points PB!
As to standing up to negative media coverage, understand that I live in the West Midlands, well at the end of April, I was watching my 3 year old grandson careering around a soft play area in his Aguero City shirt and I heard him talking to some boys and they were giving him some grief asking him why he supported Man City? He answered: "Coz my Poppa does" (That is I BTW),"and my Mummy does and Aunty Hannah does and they supported City when they were rubbish." At which point he stuck his arms out and ran around them shouting "Aqguerooooooooooooooooo".
I had to laugh.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Come on lets be honest this is the no news part of the year with papers struggling for market share in a total media market that is changing via the digital revolution (thanks Marvin for your posts on this).
Quite proud of the way we conduct ourselves really but I do understand the need to protest about the way they have identified anti City articles as the way to attract their main purchasing customers.

There is no obligation to buy or read or view this type of headline advertising especially if it upsets us but they have their reasons because the more it upsets us as City fans the more likely it is to be successful to attract new non City purchases etc..

We don't have to agree with the journo and his team, we just have to understand why the headline has been considered ideal for printing.

Let those who are frightened of the rise and rise of City buy the anti City slant to satisfy their lack of understanding regarding how a real business plan works. It will stop them asking why their own owners don't do the same which is the question they should be asking.

The thing is as far as I can see the digital media revolution is simply Feeding the Trolls. The Telegraph has become the Trollograph over the last 3 years, The Guardian is similarly going down the pan. You wouldn't dare say the things that some do in the comments sections of our papers to peoples faces - why is it acceptable in a paper? Honestly we're fucked as a nation if the broadsheets are concentrating on the troll market.

 

[pellers_tastic]

The more negative stories they print, the more ammunition we have to fire back at them in the future. Remember Oliver Holts tweet when we bought Aguero stating
"Aguero will be highest profile signing of summer so far if it happens. Still think Charlie Adam to Liverpool could be best though" Thats has been retweeted over 10k times and will continue to be!!

It will be the same with other stupid headlines they write. If we sign KDB and he puts in some great displays, they will be made to look stupid. What I dont understand is why there are not questions about the Chelsea management team, they have Matic and let him go and then buy him back for 20+ million (thats money laundering). Then they have a special player in KDB who they buy and not give a chance and then sell him, he turns out to be a very good player indeed. If I was a chelsea fan I would be scratching my head thinking WTF is going on. If I was a journalist I would certainly be asking questions.

 

[ComfySeats]

If the daily mail covered Thomas Edisons invention of the light bulb "light bulb flop Edisons finally gets it right, here are the 99 failures he had first" with a footnote "he got one right"