Media bias against City

[bluwes]

May be you need to read today's article in the Fail about season tickets, fantasy land

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.

Indeed. Doesn't make all of them wrong though anymore than it makes all of them right, does it? I'd be interested to know what narrative fans of say Villa, Newcastle, Liverpool and West Ham think the media has about their clubs.

If you accept the premise that whilst there are still articles out there of real journalistic merit, an inevitable and regrettable feature of newspapers in this online, global media age is the need to make money from advertising revenue (duly enhanced by generating clicks), then when 90% of the world's football fans (and I'm referencing only the Premier League) support either the rags, the dippers, Chelski or the Arse, it makes sense for those papers to portray City, who are a de facto enemy common to all 4 clubs given that our rise has cost one or the other of them £40 odd million a year for the last 5 years, in a particular light. In doing so they pander to preconceptions of us.

I'll happily agree that some, perhaps even most, of the stuff on this thread is absolute tosh, but if you believe that City (and I'm talking in general terms) get spoken off in the same tones as United and Liverpool do by the media, or are afforded anywhere near the same respect, then IMO you can't be helped

 

[Shirley]

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.

I was glancing at the paper as I was beckoned for my appointment. You obviously read the MEN regularly where as I am based overseas now so only get to read the printed edition on my annual trips home.
I'm not conceding just yet, IIRC the back page was the Zabba article, the next two was the rag report with player ratings then the next page was the player ratings for City, that's as far as I got.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

I was glancing at the paper as I was beckoned for my appointment. You obviously read the MEN regularly where as I am based overseas now so only get to read the printed edition on my annual trips home.
I'm not conceding just yet, IIRC the back page was the Zabba article, the next two was the rag report with player ratings then the next page was the player ratings for City, that's as far as I got.

doesn't 1 page for Zabba and 1 page for the match equal 2, the same as the Rags got for their match?

 

[Shirley]

doesn't 1 page for Zabba and 1 page for the match equal 2, the same as the Rags got for their match?

Depends how polaroid one is!!

 

[CelesteItis]

Ostriches back in force

 

[franksinatra]

Indeed. Doesn't make all of them wrong though anymore than it makes all of them right, does it? I'd be interested to know what narrative fans of say Villa, Newcastle, Liverpool and West Ham think the media has about their clubs.

If you accept the premise that whilst there are still articles out there of real journalistic merit, an inevitable and regrettable feature of newspapers in this online, global media age is the need to make money from advertising revenue (duly enhanced by generating clicks), then when 90% of the world's football fans (and I'm referencing only the Premier League) support either the rags, the dippers, Chelski or the Arse, it makes sense for those papers to portray City, who are a de facto enemy common to all 4 clubs given that our rise has cost one or the other of them £40 odd million a year for the last 5 years, in a particular light. In doing so they pander to preconceptions of us.

I'll happily agree that some, perhaps even most, of the stuff on this thread is absolute tosh, but if you believe that City (and I'm talking in general terms) get spoken off in the same tones as United and Liverpool do by the media, or are afforded anywhere near the same respect, then IMO you can't be helped

No it does not prove anything either way, because all fans feel the same, but it should make people consider their opinion more robustly. However that point was just a counter argument to you associating political bias as proof football bias could also exist. Similarly it proves nothing either way.

What is suggested on this forum is wide scale collusion, corruption within the context of the media, FA, Uefa, Sky and personally I do not think we are that important or the benefits of undermining us is worth the risk to those organisations involved.

The argument we do not get treated like United, Liverpool could be argued by pretty much every club in the football pyramid with regards exposure. Even if this was true it does not prove bias, agenda against us. It would be no different in germany, spain etc

The issue of respect is intriguing. If true is it based on deference to the established order, ex-players in the press, or as widely argued click bait for the masses?

I have always had my doubts regarding this. I find it difficult yo believe thousands of top four fans click on negative articles about City to make it a worthwhile business model. Is their any evidence of this? Personally I think a united article either positive or negative would receive more interest and that is how I think the press works.

Case in point being Mourinho and Wenger. You have highlighted those clubs as being part of the establishment with the majority of world fans. So if the press had this bias towards them, and they had to protect their revenue streams, click bait etc how do you explain the continual criticism this year. In fact Wenger is the most maligned manager every year?

If it was true these Clubs receive favourable press, based on revenues, click bait, surely thousands of chelsea and arsenal fans are switching off, reducing paper sales, advertising revenues as we speak. So why are the papers criticing these clubs now? If what is suggestedis true those papers are cutting their own throat financially at the minute. How do you explain this?

Similarly last year LVG was ridiculed, as was Moyes previously based on the common argument this would not happen as paper, advertising revenues would fall.

 

[oakiecokie]

I was glancing at the paper as I was beckoned for my appointment. You obviously read the MEN regularly where as I am based overseas now so only get to read the printed edition on my annual trips home.
I'm not conceding just yet, IIRC the back page was the Zabba article, the next two was the rag report with player ratings then the next page was the player ratings for City, that's as far as I got.

Strangely enough on the page you are describing, is not on the back page but on Page 52 with the Headlines "Aguero Is Now Among The Best In The World" and is from a near full page quote from ... Zaba !!!
Flick over to the previous pages 50 & 51 and there you have a full page on City v Newcastle (Match Report) and opposite you have a picture of Sergio and underneath to complete the page is the "Five things we`ve learned".
The Rags have pages 53/54 and 55 and they use the same format as the City write-ups.

 

[oakiecokie]

doesn't 1 page for Zabba and 1 page for the match equal 2, the same as the Rags got for their match?

We both have 3 pages apiece JMW.The back page is split 50/50 as an addition to the other 3 pages.

 

[mat]

Awaits first "LVG handed title boost following Aguero injury" headline....