I've always been very unwilling to subscribe to the agenda theory — I just don't believe in that kind of thing — but this, from the BBC website, really burns me:
"Of the Premier League's four contenders, only Manchester United failed to make it through, suffering a heartbreaking exit against Wolfsburg on Tuesday night."
Now why the fuck is it "heartbreaking"? Would they have written that about City? Or even Arsenal or Chelsea?
It's neither pointless or ridiculous. Not acknowledging that we get a far more dismissive press than any of the other top clubs in the country would fit that description. I understand that some people go over the top in their examples and maybe there are one or two who are paranoid. To dismiss it in its entirety is naive in the extreme - something I don't have you down as.http://www.footballfan.zone/1/bayer...ayer-ratings-from-citys-heartbreaking-defeat/
http://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...champions-league/story-e6frf423-1227062186179
http://www.footballfancast.com/premier-league/manchester-city/manchester-city-suffer-late-heartbreak
http://www.sportinglife.com/footbal...cle/168/8321394/what-now-for-city-and-mancini
You see, this is why this whole thread and discussion is ultimately pointless and ridiculous. Because people's comments are based on confirmation bias, and one-eyedness. Classic examples of the "Hostile Media Effect" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
Did you manage to throw a challenge in mate? Suppose it's difficult when you're surrounded by people who are lapping it up.
One of my 'friends on the inside' [not Strangeways, obviously] told me that MP made some sarky comments about 'Dead Man Walking' at the end of last season and they didn't take very kindly to it - the spoilt, self-righteous children that most of them are.I met Jonathan Wilson at an event in Manchester back in September and he had a real nasty go at Pellegrini (can't recall off the top of my head what it was about but someone else in the media had said something similar a few days earlier) and we had a heated but polite discussion about this afterwards. I said it was completely out of order to say something like that and he claimed MP asked for it, having supposedly made a sarky comment about the press. My response was "Well you never give him any credit, always have a go at him personally, speculating about his job constantly and generally not applying the same standards to other managers (Mourinho & LVG being prime examples). Mayvbe he occasionally gets a bit fed up of that and decided to have a pop back at people he thinks are constantly sabotaging him and his club.
The Guardian have a real downer on us generally, as proven by the fact that they continue to let Jamie Jack-off write about us.
Until about a month a go I used to really like the football weekly podcast but I went to one of their live shows in London and it ruined it for me. The panel was Sean Ingles, Richardson, Ronay, Steinburg. It was the day of the china deal and it was clear from their discussion on the topic that they have nothing but sheer contempt for our club.
They make a big deal of how they can say more than they are allowed to on the podcast and it became apparent that without an editor they can speak what they actually think, not what they have to write in order to come across as not biased.
Lots of talk about how we're ruining football and Barney Ronay openly said he hoped everything failed and it collapsed. It was in London so I expected a certain amount of pandering but - and it's hard to express this without sounding soft - the tone was really quite mean and not at all banter-y like I'd expected and am used to from being a City fan moved down south.
It was like when your idiot rag friend starts mouthing off bullshit about the Etihad deal or oil money at the pub, but instead of being able to put him in his place, you're stuck in an audience with 500 idiots lapping it up and even worse, you fucking paid to go!
On top of that I actually thought it was actually an awful event. Like a very boring episode of the podcast with an hour of them patting themselves on the back for making such a popular podcast and Richardson telling stories about all the footballers he's friends with - usually ending with a promise to tell the rest of the panel the juicier bits backstage.
If I had to describe the whole thing in one word it would be...smug. They're all really smug and the following of the podcast seems to have gone to their heads, and now they think they are pundits giving out insight instead of reporters.
I've been listening still, but it's ruined for me. They made a joke about not talking us up yesterday, the "You might expect us to talk about City now, but we're not.." one. Before I'd have taken it as a joke, but having seen their attitudes in person, it's hard to take it as a harmless transition into talking about Gent.
A real shame because I've enjoyed the pod for about 2 years and I also can't really trust anything I read on their website anymore, knowing the opinions of the people writing them.
I remembered what the incident was. A few days earlier, someone in the media had accused MP of being a liar when asked about de Bruyne, after he told reporters that he had no knowledge of him going for a medical and wouldn't comment on rumours.One of my 'friends on the inside' [not Strangeways, obviously] told me that MP made some sarky comments about 'Dead Man Walking' at the end of last season and they didn't take very kindly to it - the spoilt, self-righteous children that most of them are.
I've always been very unwilling to subscribe to the agenda theory — I just don't believe in that kind of thing — but this, from the BBC website, really burns me:
"Of the Premier League's four contenders, only Manchester United failed to make it through, suffering a heartbreaking exit against Wolfsburg on Tuesday night."
Now why the fuck is it "heartbreaking"? Would they have written that about City? Or even Arsenal or Chelsea?
http://www.footballfan.zone/1/bayer...ayer-ratings-from-citys-heartbreaking-defeat/
http://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...champions-league/story-e6frf423-1227062186179
http://www.footballfancast.com/premier-league/manchester-city/manchester-city-suffer-late-heartbreak
http://www.sportinglife.com/footbal...cle/168/8321394/what-now-for-city-and-mancini
You see, this is why this whole thread and discussion is ultimately pointless and ridiculous. Because people's comments are based on confirmation bias, and one-eyedness. Classic examples of the "Hostile Media Effect" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
One of my 'friends on the inside' [not Strangeways, obviously] told me that MP made some sarky comments about 'Dead Man Walking' at the end of last season and they didn't take very kindly to it - the spoilt, self-righteous children that most of them are.
I remembered what the incident was. A few days earlier, someone in the media had accused MP of being a liar when asked about de Bruyne, after he told reporters that he had no knowledge of him going for a medical and wouldn't comment on rumours.
Has anyone accused Van Gall (spelling deliberate) of being a liar for claiming that the rags have made progress after last season, on the grounds that they lasted 2 rounds in the League Cup compared to one the season before?
They don't like MP for not playing their game. They also have their own agenda which is obviously not pro-City. I can't understand how anyone can think otherwise. I'm talking about the written press. I find the broadcast media pretty bland but with a splash of Rag-loving, of course.I remembered what the incident was. A few days earlier, someone in the media had accused MP of being a liar when asked about de Bruyne, after he told reporters that he had no knowledge of him going for a medical and wouldn't comment on rumours.
Has anyone accused Van Gall (spelling deliberate) of being a liar for claiming that the rags have made progress after last season, on the grounds that they lasted 2 rounds in the League Cup compared to one the season before?