Media bias against City

[Norfolk Blue]

Flicking through various sites on the internet yesterday. Came across a live chat show regarding transfer deadline day. Four blokes on there – didn't know any of them – one was a scouser with an accent that made it hard to understand a word he said. Another one had been vaccinated with a gramophone needle – couldn't stop talking. A real opinionated know nothing. They got onto club academies and bringing on youngsters. I thought that City should at least receive some praise for their efforts but straight away the mouthy one got onto City. He told us he had been to the Etihad Academy and in his opinion it was “soulless” and therefore would be useless in bringing through youngsters. At that stage I moved on – if I want to listen to an idiot at least I'll choose which idiot it is. Is there an Agenda – if there isn't then there's a lot of bitter and twisted knobheads out there who resent what City have achieved. Long may it continue!

 

[SilverFox2]

As a general rule the press will never report on City in an even handed way when reporting our spending. It is the one stick they can still beat us with so will exaggerate the transfers fees paid compared to other clubs. It continues to peddle the line that City have bought success and they are continuing to do so. It gives ammunition to other clubs fans to taunt us.

It is our weak spot and one we don't have an argument against. There is very little praise for all the other positives that we bring to football such as the fantastic attacking football we play, (there is still the myth that Arsenal play the best football in the league despite the evidence of the past 4 years), The fact we don't have a boorish manager who is constantly trying to manipulate the agenda, The commitment to youth development etc etc

Certainly our owner and his team of professionals will continue to invest from City profits irrespective of how this is reported in the press / media.

City are the ones with an investment plan whereas the digital revolution makes the press the ones with an uncertain future so it is little wonder that they are collectively still pandering to their researched paying public most of whom no longer buy papers.

If the Financial Times is anything to go by they had better sell out to a fully digitised media specialist rapidly before they simply go out of business.
It seems they are handling this change just as badly as they are handling the rate of change that has seen City overtake the LFC's of the PL.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Now I didn't believe that whole city media bias because I thought media would love the under dog turned big dog story plus adds competition which were told is healthy right. But having read this topic on the forum I am turning into a believer. That and not to mention articles from Sky such as the new Paul Merson ratings of the recent transfer window. Giving city a B- and no "mersons view" below it. Liverpool given better grade than city in transfer window yet look how the dynamic has changed in our squad from our business dealings. Not that I should care what merson thinks as he's an idiot but others think what is written on these sites is gospel!

Can't believe there is a debate on whether there is or isn't a media bias against City, there just is. The newspaper customers are generally the raggy hordes and previously established top 4, therefore they have to pander to them and put a slant on things. Don't forget that Sky nearly bought a share in Manchester United too. I remember getting several phone calls offering me the opportunity to subscribe to MUTV. I think it will change eventually as we become more successful in Europe.

 

[waspish]

Can't believe there is a debate on whether there is or isn't a media bias against City, there just is. The newspaper customers are generally the raggy hordes and previously established top 4, therefore they have to pander to them and put a slant on things. Don't forget that Sky nearly bought a share in Manchester United too. I remember getting several phone calls offering me the opportunity to subscribe to MUTV. I think it will change eventually as we become more successful in Europe.

Didn't sky have a stake in city

 

[SilverFox2]

Can't believe there is a debate on whether there is or isn't a media bias against City, there just is. The newspaper customers are generally the raggy hordes and previously established top 4, therefore they have to pander to them and put a slant on things. Don't forget that Sky nearly bought a share in Manchester United too. I remember getting several phone calls offering me the opportunity to subscribe to MUTV. I think it will change eventually as we become more successful in Europe.

Don't think there is a debate about whether it exists, the debate is why it is there.

Just an opinion of course.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I don’t believe it exists!
Reporters will always put a slant on what they report and there has always been a slightly more positive slant toward the bigger clubs in historic terms.

However. Look at the coverage of the last few days. Utd have been hammered by everyman and there dog for a shambolic window. Many have made the comparison with us as a well-run club. What more do you want! Some Journos do tend to wum and be overly critical but they are just looking for clickbate or social media coverage as opposed to balanced journalism. You need to learn the difference.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Can't believe there is a debate on whether there is or isn't a media bias against City, there just is. The newspaper customers are generally the raggy hordes and previously established top 4, therefore they have to pander to them and put a slant on things. Don't forget that Sky nearly bought a share in Manchester United too. I remember getting several phone calls offering me the opportunity to subscribe to MUTV. I think it will change eventually as we become more successful in Europe.

if Graham Souness says there is a media bias its got to be true, now can i have your autograph

 

[SilverFox2]

I don’t believe it exists!
Reporters will always put a slant on what they report and there has always been a slightly more positive slant toward the bigger clubs in historic terms.

However. Look at the coverage of the last few days. Utd have been hammered by everyman and there dog for a shambolic window. Many have made the comparison with us as a well-run club. What more do you want! Some Journos do tend to wum and be overly critical but they are just looking for clickbate or social media coverage as opposed to balanced journalism. You need to learn the difference.

So there is an historical bias for reporters which they must balance against fairness and a need for the paying public to pay the wages via click bait or paper purchases.

Guess which way an editor / owner would prefer the article to go.

 

[Matty]

It's annoying, it's frustrating, it's not what accurate journalistic reporting should be about, but in the modern age of the media, it's completely understandable from a business perspective, that City get a fairly rough deal.

Ignoring football for the time being, the media should have one aim, and one aim only, to accurately report the news, giving an unbiased view on what's happening. Yes, there can be opinion pieces, but in the main the media's job should be to present the key facts to the public. I say should as that's what the media is supposed to do, however it's not what the media does. The media's main aim is to create profits, to bring in revenue, to make money for the Rupert Murdocks of this world, and for their shareholders. This aim is often in direct conflict with the provision of unbiased facts. The media need people to engage with their products. They need the public to buy their newspapers, to click on their websites, to watch their TV channels. More viewers/users equates to more revenue, it's really very simply. The way they achieve this is to give the public what they want. If enough members of the public want to see a dwarf being thrown then someone, somewhere, will be showing it.

The way this, at least currently, relates to Manchester City is fairly clear. We are viewed by many in the footballing public as the embodiment of all that is wrong with the modern game. We, in their opinion, spend extortionate sums of money trying to buy success we haven't earned. Success their clubs should have, or at least success they wish their club could achieve but can't due to a lack of their own money. It's a mix of jealousy, fear and anger. The media are aware of this groundswell of opinion and, as they want to attract as many viewers/users as possible, they tailor the news towards a narrative that shows Manchester City to be everything the public have assumed we are. Negativity towards City generates interest from your average football fan as it supports their flawed viewpoint, "see, I was right, City are awful, the Daily Mail says so". The only way this will change is if public opinion changes. Time will help, City's wealth, and position within World Football, are comparatively new, as time passes we'll become a more accepted, more "regular" member of football's elite, and the public will "forget" quite why they disliked us. It's happening with Chelsea more and more, they are still where they are due to Abramovich's investment, however they have more or less become an accepted member of England's establishment these days.

Media bias is just something we're going to have to live with for the time being. We don't have the support of enough neutrals yet for us not to be a simple, easy, lazy target for journalists when it comes to "clickbait" reporting.

Fuck em' I say. They can whimper and complain, they can take shots at us from the safety of their fleet street offices, or more accurately, from behind the screen of their laptop in their bedsit, it won't halt the City juggernaut, we won't even feel it as we plough straight through them. Manchester City, despite the constant attempts to derail our progress, will be on of World footballs top sides for years to come, if we have to put up with a bit of negativity from the jealous throngs then so be it.

 

[SilverFox2]

It's annoying, it's frustrating, it's not what accurate journalistic reporting should be about, but in the modern age of the media, it's completely understandable from a business perspective, that City get a fairly rough deal.

Ignoring football for the time being, the media should have one aim, and one aim only, to accurately report the news, giving an unbiased view on what's happening. Yes, there can be opinion pieces, but in the main the media's job should be to present the key facts to the public. I say should as that's what the media is supposed to do, however it's not what the media does. The media's main aim is to create profits, to bring in revenue, to make money for the Rupert Murdocks of this world, and for their shareholders. This aim is often in direct conflict with the provision of unbiased facts. The media need people to engage with their products. They need the public to buy their newspapers, to click on their websites, to watch their TV channels. More viewers/users equates to more revenue, it's really very simply. The way they achieve this is to give the public what they want. If enough members of the public want to see a dwarf being thrown then someone, somewhere, will be showing it.

The way this, at least currently, relates to Manchester City is fairly clear. We are viewed by many in the footballing public as the embodiment of all that is wrong with the modern game. We, in their opinion, spend extortionate sums of money trying to buy success we haven't earned. Success their clubs should have, or at least success they wish their club could achieve but can't due to a lack of their own money. It's a mix of jealousy, fear and anger. The media are aware of this groundswell of opinion and, as they want to attract as many viewers/users as possible, they tailor the news towards a narrative that shows Manchester City to be everything the public have assumed we are. Negativity towards City generates interest from your average football fan as it supports their flawed viewpoint, "see, I was right, City are awful, the Daily Mail says so". The only way this will change is if public opinion changes. Time will help, City's wealth, and position within World Football, are comparatively new, as time passes we'll become a more accepted, more "regular" member of football's elite, and the public will "forget" quite why they disliked us. It's happening with Chelsea more and more, they are still where they are due to Abramovich's investment, however they have more or less become an accepted member of England's establishment these days.

Media bias is just something we're going to have to live with for the time being. We don't have the support of enough neutrals yet for us not to be a simple, easy, lazy target for journalists when it comes to "clickbait" reporting.

Fuck em' I say. They can whimper and complain, they can take shots at us from the safety of their fleet street offices, or more accurately, from behind the screen of their laptop in their bedsit, it won't halt the City juggernaut, we won't even feel it as we plough straight through them. Manchester City, despite the constant attempts to derail our progress, will be on of World footballs top sides for years to come, if we have to put up with a bit of negativity from the jealous throngs then so be it.

Good post, and the content probably is one of the reasons why our club has been structured via CFG to appeal to new global supporters to compliment our traditionally fewer City supporters within the UK.
Our UK support will change over time of course but it is a gamble to rely on that changing quickly.

Since the press and BT / UK Sky is specifically targeted at UK they know their audience well so as that changes so will they.
We will know about that when an LFC old boy is replaced by Mike Summerbee, until then don't hold your breath.