Media bias against City

[The perfect fumble]

Whilst there is some merit in what you post, I think for most blues it isn't the criticism that bothers us, but rather the complete inconsistency in reporting on us compared with other leading clubs, most especially united. That has little to do with yesterday, and more to do with wider issues. From a personal point of view, the recent more critical reporting on united, although extremely belated, has attenuated that perception a little, but nonetheless it is plain to anyone who cares to pay attention that we don't get an even hand with the press. I believe that is all most of us ask for. Criticism is not really the issue for many imo.

There in lies the rub, the inconsistency of the criticism, whereby the media reports on Arsenal, who played badly but won yesterday at home to Newcastle (Newcastle for Christ's sake!) Are markedly different to the reports on our away win to an in form Watford.

Because this sort of thing happens all the time, Blues display a general distrust of the media, it permeates our attitude to everything we watch and read.

A bit like me and the Tories, I hate them with a vengeance, consequently I distrust everything they say, if Cameron said the sun rose in the morning and set in the evening, I'd still Google it to check.

As for the change of tack on reporting Utd, that's because the club has become disconnected from their fan base. Under the iron vice of Ferguson and Gill the club and their sheep like fans were as one, a trophy winning juggernaut, despite their blood sucking owners (though it did spawn protests and a break away club). But now the media are torn between their default position of sucking Utd management dick and reflecting rag fans discontent. There are millions of rags and the media needs them to tune in, click on, buy their papers, so they can no longer just regurgitate Utd press packs as news. The media have to tread a fine line, they still need to keep on side with the powers that be at the swamp, yet they have to pay lip service to the pissed off rag hordes, they really are struggling holding all those balls in the air, my heart bleeds for the buggers.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There in lies the rub, the inconsistency of the criticism, whereby the media reports on Arsenal, who played badly but won yesterday at home to Newcastle (Newcastle for Christ's sake!) Are markedly different to the reports on our away win to an in form Watford.

Because this sort of thing happens all the time Blues display a general distrust of the media, it permeates our attitude to everything we watch and read.

A bit like me and the Tories, I hate them with a vengeance, consequently I distrust everything they say, if Cameron said the sun rose in the morning and set in the evening, I'd still Google it to check.

As for the change of tack on reporting Utd, that's because the club has become disconnected from their fan base. Under the iron vice of Ferguson and Gill the club and their sheep like fans were as one, a trophy wining juggernaut, despite their blood sucking owners (though it did spawn protests and a break away club). But now the media are torn between their default position of sucking Utd management dick and reflecting rag fans discontent. There are of millions of rags and the media needs them to tune in, click on, buy their papers, so they can no longer just regurgitate Utd press packs as news. The media have to tread a fine line, they still need to keep on side with the powers that be at the swamp, yet they have to pay lip service to the pissed off rag hordes, they really are struggling holding all those balls in the air, my heart bleeds for the buggers.

As you say, they're clearly struggling to reconcile the disconnect between united as a club and their supporters, which is only set to continue and accentuate in the months and years ahead imo.

I think City fans' attitude to the press, whilst frequently excessive, is entirely understandable. Most of the press have looked down their noses at City as a club since the takeover, especially in the first four years or so. The reaction to Hughes' sacking being a perfect case in point. Contrast that with the obsequious and at times nauseating way united have been reported on in that period and it's perfectly plain to see why there's such contempt for the press on here. There can be no doubt that that construct is no longer so rigidly in force, and in truth has been slowly changing since Sergio's goal - although if fate had taken a different turn I don't doubt the media's reaction would have been completely vicious, much more so than it was towards united for utterly blowing it that season.

If you deeply care about something, as pretty much anyone who posts on here does about City, it's perfectly natural to defend it when it's talked about in wholly unfair terms, and as a consequence of that, some people are going to deal with things that are disproportionate and in some respects anachronistic. People have long memories when it comes to others, especially the media, slagging off their football club, even if things are slowly improving in that regard.

 

[Why Always Ste]

if or When the media come around in years to come, don't ever forget what these cunts had written.

They'll be all over us with praise when the project is in full swing.
they're just still in the mode of pleasing their main customer base (Rag/Liverpool/Arsenal fans)
When the tide has turned, and we have a billion Chinese people watching our games, reading articles online and so on - then they'll surely be praising us (if they want to maintain the advertising revenue for their websites that is)

 

[dom]

There in lies the rub, the inconsistency of the criticism, whereby the media reports on Arsenal, who played badly but won yesterday at home to Newcastle (Newcastle for Christ's sake!) Are markedly different to the reports on our away win to an in form Watford.

Because this sort of thing happens all the time, Blues display a general distrust of the media, it permeates our attitude to everything we watch and read.

A bit like me and the Tories, I hate them with a vengeance, consequently I distrust everything they say, if Cameron said the sun rose in the morning and set in the evening, I'd still Google it to check.

As for the change of tack on reporting Utd, that's because the club has become disconnected from their fan base. Under the iron vice of Ferguson and Gill the club and their sheep like fans were as one, a trophy wining juggernaut, despite their blood sucking owners (though it did spawn protests and a break away club). But now the media are torn between their default position of sucking Utd management dick and reflecting rag fans discontent. There are millions of rags and the media needs them to tune in, click on, buy their papers, so they can no longer just regurgitate Utd press packs as news. The media have to tread a fine line, they still need to keep on side with the powers that be at the swamp, yet they have to pay lip service to the pissed off rag hordes, they really are struggling holding all those balls in the air, my heart bleeds for the buggers.

Post of the thread TPF
I couldn't agree more: an excellent summary

 

[BlueTG]

Did you see Sagna lose Giroud for his goal?

No, and neither did you as he was Otamendi's man

 

[Machiavelli]

The media's narrative and love for certain clubs was in place long before we crashed the party.
I quite enjoy being the villan of the piece, it reminds me every day that we're right under their skin and constantly in their thoughts.
Half of what's said about us is bollocks anyway, so it's easily taken apart.

 

[mad4city]

I think for most blues it isn't the criticism that bothers us, but rather the complete inconsistency in reporting on us compared with other leading clubs, most especially united.... it is plain to anyone who cares to pay attention that we don't get an even hand with the press...

Exactly. Criticism is fine, blatant favouritism is not.

 

[dennishasdoneit]

Many City fans are getting like United fans and believing all the rubbish that it is written about them.

Too many fans of both teams allow themselves to be influenced by what Sky and BBC 'experts' say in the commentary.

That's why rag fans are full of crap and many City fans run down their own team on here.

i agree,

 

[dennishasdoneit]

You might have seen in the DT that Mangala is so bad that Sagna talks to him during matches.

Even playing as a kid, we were screamed at to 'talk to each other' but with City it appears a fault.

exactly.

 

[yankcitizen76]

Darren Fletcher and Robbie Savage on 606 tonight were talking about tweets they'd received about the anti City bias in the media, and one tweet in particular that Fletcher had received today.

Fletcher thought it was ridiculous! Preposterous! he dismissed it as unsubstantiated guff, Savage grunted in agreement. Fletcher invited the blue who'd tweeted him to call up to discuss, but left the listeners in no doubt that were he to do so he'd be treated with the ridicule such tinfoil hattery deserved.

There were no takers.

This is the problem I have. The bias I can deal with. It doesn't matter to me the article is printed in Portland or London or New Delhi. I want the pricks to at LEAST admit that it exists. Multinational companies will often times keep the same editorial policy. When the Rags last won the title it was mentioned in almost every news article, that City had held the PL title for the "least amount of time." Would they bother to mention that if it Arsenal relenquishing the title? I don't think so. Yellow journalists will print whatever slant they want. But at least admit to the bias. Don't be two faced about your very nature.