Media bias against City

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Have we had any update on column inches in the Manchester Evening News for the last three month period?

I think on the last count it was running 60-40 in Uniteds favour. Not had an update on measurements from that poster for a while.

I know I take the mick a little (as many do of me) but I genuinely hope their 'Agenda' at finding slights against City is not detracting enjoyment, for them, from what a wonderful time this is to support City

The Uwe comment and United being 3-0 down at half time (which have both proved accurate) shows the desperation to be outraged by the media.

Almost Pigeonho like in your dedication to showing up for a quick sneer when someone posts something obviously ridiculous, whilst absenting yourself when tougher arguments are there to be had! ;-)

Seriously though, whilst the Uwe stuff is admittedly pretty toe curling, your reluctance to acknowledge that the media reports on different clubs in different ways continues to baffle me. The Mirror consistently portrays the Tories as a bunch of Lord Snooties. The Fail loves nothing more than to publish tall tales that will suit the mindset of its bigoted readership (sample 'single mothers more likely to die horribly of cancer'). If that's how the media operates with regard political coverage and social commentary, why is it such a stretch to imagine that maybe they do the same thing on the sports pages? Clicks mean cash, and the world is awash with armchair rags and dippers, who love to read about how vulgar we are, no?

 

[A Blue]

This is the secret of propaganda. The saturation of a group of people with propagandist idea's without their noticing it. Of course it has a goal, but the goal must be so clever, and so brilliantly concealed, that the people who it influences don't notice anything. Dr Goebbles.
Notice anything frank ?

 

[oakiecokie]

First time I have looked at the hard edition of the MEN for over a year this morning while sat in a reception and I did notice the rags had two pages for their match report as against one page for the City match report, which funnily enough had me immediately thinking of this thread.

As for finding slights, this week on the worlds biggest sports radio station I have heard from one of their announcers "Everyone is sick of City because of the money" and "Pellegrini is on his last legs".
I await to see if these comments are proved accurate or they can be filed under Media bias against City.

Which games were these for as I have Mondays edition in front of me and BOTH clearly have the same amount of pages for the match report and the "Five things we have learnt".
If you`re gonna talk bollocks at least ensure you can`t be found out !!!

 

[franksinatra]

This is the secret of propaganda. The saturation of a group of people with propagandist idea's without their noticing it. Of course it has a goal, but the goal must be so clever, and so brilliantly concealed, that the people who it influences don't notice anything. Dr Goebbles.
Notice anything frank ?

Could not agree more mate. That is why I post a counterbalance to the argument on the media bias thread:-)

 

[franksinatra]

Almost Pigeonho like in your dedication to showing up for a quick sneer when someone posts something obviously ridiculous, whilst absenting yourself when tougher arguments are there to be had! ;-)

Seriously though, whilst the Uwe stuff is admittedly pretty toe curling, your reluctance to acknowledge that the media reports on different clubs in different ways continues to baffle me. The Mirror consistently portrays the Tories as a bunch of Lord Snooties. The Fail loves nothing more than to publish tall tales that will suit the mindset of its bigoted readership (sample 'single mothers more likely to die horribly of cancer'). If that's how the media operates with regard political coverage and social commentary, why is it such a stretch to imagine that maybe they do the same thing on the sports pages? Clicks mean cash, and the world is awash with armchair rags and dippers, who love to read about how vulgar we are, no?

I would never argue papers can slant world views but have not seen it specifically about City. Now I have no doubt someone will post a negative story and demand I explain this. In many instances I cannot but similarly I cannot explain other articles about other clubs.

Sinilarly if you went on a whole number of football forums you would find a similar number of fans, to this one, complaining about bias against their club? Is it such a stretch to imagine you only think there is a bias because it is about your club?

I mean look at this forum at the minute. We have the media bias thread, swings and roundabouts, free kick ratio thread, all throwing accusations at the media, referees, Sky (do you remember the online campaign and thread nobody speaks off??), Uefa fixing the draws in the past. Football fans always think this about their club.

 

[spider blue]

Loads of people have that extra bit of hate for the scum because the media constantly plays a PR role for them. If you're playing the most entertaining footy and achieving the most success in recent years, football fans can't help but notice, and if it happens without the poxy media cramming it down people's throats making everyone sick... Bonus!

Totally agree mate,spot on.

 

[Shirley]

Which games were these for as I have Mondays edition in front of me and BOTH clearly have the same amount of pages for the match report and the "Five things we have learnt".
If you`re gonna talk bollocks at least ensure you can`t be found out !!!

I picked up the paper and simply glanced at the back sports pages, I didn't pay any attention to what game it was other than that on the back page was an article with Zabba saying Augero is the best. So perhaps with your extensive library of back editions of the MEN maybe you can dig it out and confirm what game it was, unless you have different editions there in the leafy suburbs of mid Cheshire than the edition I picked up in Salford.
I have no need to talk bollocks and I will say it again, there were two pages on the rag report and one on the City report, which doesn't really bother me at all but for some reason bothers you.

 

[oakiecokie]

I picked up the paper and simply glanced at the back sports pages, I didn't pay any attention to what game it was other than that on the back page was an article with Zabba saying Augero is the best. So perhaps with your extensive library of back editions of the MEN maybe you can dig it out and confirm what game it was, unless you have different editions there in the leafy suburbs of mid Cheshire than the edition I picked up in Salford.
I have no need to talk bollocks and I will say it again, there were two pages on the rag report and one on the City report, which doesn't really bother me at all but for some reason bothers you.

I can only assume that the reception you were in was at Specsavers.I have all this months Monday copies and we have equally the same as the Rags on all reports.
You were the one claiming it was only yesterday you read it,so I don`t believe for one moment you didn`t know which weekend it was from.It obviously tried to suit your agenda which failed miserably,as you were found wanting !!

 

[Shirley]

I can only assume that the reception you were in was at Specsavers.I have all this months Monday copies and we have equally the same as the Rags on all reports.
You were the one claiming it was only yesterday you read it,so I don`t believe for one moment you didn`t know which weekend it was from.It obviously tried to suit your agenda which failed miserably,as you were found wanting !!

It certainly wasn't specsavers but it was this morning I read it not yesterday, check my post, maybe you need to go to spec savers!!
Actually I thought it was today's edition but why would they run match reports with player ratings on a Thursday?
Listen mate, I have no agenda at all, I'm simply adding my tuppence to a football forum so I can only claim it's the Holtsziemers catching up with me IF I'm wrong.
But........I will call back in the morning and see if the paper is still there.

 

[oakiecokie]

It certainly wasn't specsavers but it was this morning I read it not yesterday, check my post, maybe you need to go to spec savers!!
Actually I thought it was today's edition but why would they run match reports with player ratings on a Thursday?
Listen mate, I have no agenda at all, I'm simply adding my tuppence to a football forum so I can only claim it's the Holtsziemers catching up with me IF I'm wrong.
But........I will call back in the morning and see if the paper is still there.

As I said I have all of the last months copies of games from Monday mornings and there is NOT one copy where the Rags have had more coverage than ourselves,certainly not a two to one page on a match report.They do exactly the same for one as the other with a match report on one page including match ratings,with another page with photos and a newish "five things we have learned" which is part of the matchday analysis.There is also a separate page (for each team) titled "Match Reaction".
Methinks you looked at the first two pages from the back of the paper,which had United reports etc and then the headline on the next pages were "LVG Amazed ..." and across from that is a full page on City Match Reaction.
Did you then turn the next two pages over ? If not then you would have missed Citys match day analysis and there ratings.
This same format has been used since the start of this season.The back page usually covers half a page of the main headline (for either club) and the other will get a half page photograph of one of the players.