Media bias against City

[franksinatra]

I guess everyone interprets things differently, but I'm still struggling to see where you're coming from on this. In fact, you're the only person I've seen on any platform defend that tweet.

He was suggesting that United were tearing Stoke apart, despite deservedly trailing 2-0 at the time! It was preposterous on every level. I'm not sure how you can even begin to defend that tweet. It's almost like you're being contrary for the sake of it.

That was not his point at all and hence I questioned the concept of posting messages in isolation and not his following tweets.

I suppose the fact he posted, not long after, that 'United had stopped tearing themselves apart and then Herrera boots it out of play' is in no way connected???

His point was clearly United were tearing themselves apart. Hence the point being Stoke tore us apart but United did that to themselves.

It is clear as day but it would take a bit of further reading so I am happy to swim against the tide of social media. It is not being contrary it is being objective.

Flick back a few pages and read my views on the independent article. I have a view point but if I read an article which I think is unfair I will say even if it does not support my view. Sadly tweets like this are chucked in, without context, and sadly it misleads people.

 

[Ric]

That was not his point at all and hence I questioned the concept of posting messages in isolation and not his following tweets.

I suppose the fact he posted, not long after, that 'United had stopped tearing themselves apart and then Herrera boots it out of play' is in no way connected???

His point was clearly United were tearing themselves apart. Hence the point being Stoke tore us apart but United did that to themselves.

It is clear as day but it would take a bit of further reading so I am happy to swim against the tide of social media. It is not being contrary it is being objective.

Flick back a few pages and read my views on the independent article.

Ah right, I see where you're coming from now. Apologies, probably too much Christmas wine on my behalf. But yes, it was badly worded. And I also think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that they self imploded whereas we were soundly beaten. The two games weren't dissimilar. Stoke deservedly won both matches.

 

[Tugay One Cup]

That was not his point at all and hence I questioned the concept of posting messages in isolation and not his following tweets.

I suppose the fact he posted, not long after, that 'United had stopped tearing themselves apart and then Herrera boots it out of play' is in no way connected???

His point was clearly United were tearing themselves apart. Hence the point being Stoke tore us apart but United did that to themselves.

It is clear as day but it would take a bit of further reading so I am happy to swim against the tide of social media. It is not being contrary it is being objective.

Flick back a few pages and read my views on the independent article. I have a view point but if I read an article which I think is unfair I will say even if it does not support my view. Sadly tweets like this are chucked in, without context, and sadly it misleads people.

Herrera was the only one who could play a pass in their team today and, despite Memphis "BetterthanRaheem" Depay playing them in for their first, Stoke were dismantling them from the first 30 seconds. So the whole "taking themselves apart" thing is bollocks.

Clearly the bloke hasn't got a clue and his tweets aren't even worth trying to suss out.

 

[franksinatra]

Ah right, I see where you're coming from now. Apologies, probably too much Christmas wine on my behalf. But yes, it was badly worded. And I also think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that they self imploded whereas we were soundly beaten. The two games weren't dissimilar. Stoke deservedly won both matches.

No worries and I agree it probably is badly worded, but his accompanying tweets about it being Moyes-esqe and United finish the first half 'trying' at least indicates his view of the performance. Definitely he was not suggesting they were playing well.

Sadly comments like this get added to the thread, left unchallenged with no context and I honestly believe for some negatively affects the enjoyment of this tremendous period in our history.

 

[franksinatra]

Herrera was the only one who could play a pass in their team today and, despite Memphis "BetterthanRaheem" Depay playing them in for their first, Stoke were dismantling them from the first 30 seconds. So the whole "taking themselves apart" thing is bollocks.

Clearly the bloke hasn't got a clue and his tweets aren't even worth trying to suss out.

That could all be true but I just wanted to challenge the narrative he was suggesting United were playing well and comparing and contrasting there 'good' performance with how we were 'tore apart'.

 

[Tugay One Cup]

That could all be true but I just wanted to challenge the narrative he was suggesting United were playing well and comparing and contrasting there 'good' performance with how we were 'tore apart'.

Yeah that's fair enough I suppose.

You posted a comment a couple of pages back about how you think it's worse to implode than be taken apart by a team in their prime (perhaps paraphrasing a tad).

I get told every week by my red colleagues that their losses are always down to them and can never admit when they've just been beaten outright but, when we get beaten, it's "oh you got torn to shreds". It always comes across as them trying to say that the only team that can do them over is themselves and just sustains their superiority complex.

For once I could stomach watching the bastards so will promptly remind them that Blind was moved to right back in the first half because Shaqiri repeatedly turned him inside out and Martial plays like Benjani.

 

[franksinatra]

Yeah that's fair enough I suppose.

You posted a comment a couple of pages back about how you think it's worse to implode than be taken apart by a team in their prime (perhaps paraphrasing a tad).

I get told every week by my red colleagues that their losses are always down to them and can never admit when they've just been beaten outright but, when we get beaten, it's "oh you got torn to shreds". It always comes across as them trying to say that the only team that can do them over is themselves and just sustains their superiority complex.

For once I could stomach watching the bastards so will promptly remind them that Blind was moved to right back in the first half because Shaqiri repeatedly turned him inside out and Martial plays like Benjani.

Yes I suggested it was more damning. But in all honesty I think if Jamie Jackson had suggested City self-imploded but United were tore apart an equal number of city fans would taken offence at that headline.

Personally I have never had an issue to losing to the Barca's,Bayern's (teams currently better than ourselves) of this world but the defeats to the West Hams, Liverpools where we have not performed and should be winning) rankle more. Hence I would suggest defeats which are more self-inflicted are worse. But I do take your point.

 

[EalingBlue2]

I'm still genuinely surprised that so many people fail to see this.

That is all 99% of the commercial media is.

Essentially they need to offer content that people click on, pick up, but, listen to in as big a number as possible so they can maximise advertising revenue and therefore their spend and there profits.

The Guardian does it to appeal to middle class leftie intelligentsia, the Mail to people scared of everything, the express to people who don't like outsiders, talk sport to the working man who gets fired up about sport etc

Everyone knows that but that doesn't mean you shouldn't listen or read something just because it is done for profit.

I find it more amusing that people try and boycott "news" sources because they are doing it for viewership or profit.

It's no different to any other industry be it fast food, banking, builders - people run businesses for profit, they make profit by driving revenues why on earth would you boycott that.

Listening to talk sport or not is like choosing to eat a Snickers or not a simple decision

 

[EalingBlue2]

Yes I suggested it was more damning. But in all honesty I think if Jamie Jackson had suggested City self-imploded but United were tore apart an equal number of city fans would taken offence at that headline.

Personally I have never had an issue to losing to the Barca's,Bayern's (teams currently better than ourselves) of this world but the defeats to the West Hams, Liverpools where we have not performed and should be winning) rankle more. Hence I would suggest defeats which are more self-inflicted are worse. But I do take your point.

Journalists also have some ridiculous opinions (as does virtually every poster on here at sometime)

Read a post match thread we lose a game and there will be opinions from

"we played well, we had good chances but we had some bad luck and made a couple of errors"

through to "pellegrini needs to go today, we must sell mangala, kolarov, bony in the window even if on a free, this is the worst City side I have seen since Frank Clark and what made it worse is there were some Belgians sitting near me"

 

[YaYa's Left Peg]

Yes I suggested it was more damning. But in all honesty I think if Jamie Jackson had suggested City self-imploded but United were tore apart an equal number of city fans would taken offence at that headline.

Personally I have never had an issue to losing to the Barca's,Bayern's (teams currently better than ourselves) of this world but the defeats to the West Hams, Liverpools where we have not performed and should be winning) rankle more. Hence I would suggest defeats which are more self-inflicted are worse. But I do take your point.

I take your point. And no way are you a blue.