I've no idea what Collymore did or didn't do, but... whatever he says or didn't say has it's roots in bellendedness and not a bias against Manchester City.
Did you read the passage on Selective Perception in that Wikipedia article that you keep quoting? Because the above attitude might well be offered as a perfect example of it.
I'm not suggesting that the article as a whole isn't relevant to this thread but merely quoting it ad nauseum is not proof of relevance but suggestion.
Of course, we're all biased in our interpretation of the media. That's a given. Equally, every instrument of the media will be biased to a greater or lesser extent in their presentation of the facts (or "facts", is some prefer). That's human nature.
What I'm interested in is how you perceive the very existence of the phenomenon of Hostile Media Effect to be in and of itself conclusive proof that there simply cannot possibly be any bias against City.
Of course it doesn't and it's extremely patronising to suggest that all those who perceive of such bias do so purely because of their blue-tinted specs.
Perhaps some do (in fact, undoubtedly so, I'd suspect) but there are a number of sound commercial reasons that strongly suggest that such a bias exists (demographics, long-standing associations and access to sources (an interview with a dickhead like Dwight Yorke will 'catch more flies' than one with a gent like Paul Lake)).
And if people want to have a moan and a whinge about that bias (perceived or real) what harm?
Still, the Wiki article is worth reading and thanks for sharing it.