Media bias for FourFourTwo

[cibaman]

Good post Manchester blue. Just to pick up on your first paragraph the point you are making I actually agree with, which to me makes redundant the argument that BT would be biased against us for Commercial reasons.

Being biased against City will only alienate our fan base, which would possibly lead to cancelled subscriptions, but I would very much doubt persuade fans of other clubs to subscribe. They will only do that if BT have the tv rights and their team is featured. For an example would City fans buy papers, subscribe to BT because they gave United a tough time on chanps lge nights?

You are also correct also we take things personally from an outsider as its different to discussing it amongst ourselves and this is the crux of the matter. If we feel that like that what would an Arsenal fan think about the treatment of Wenger or United fans about Van Gaal?

We are naturally sensitised to criticism about our club and so of course it feels everyone is against us and particularly City fans who read Blue Moon are sensitised to it more than most because we have threads dedicated to articles. Amongst my peer group those who dont read Blue Moon or a lot less aware of the bias/agenda which is alluded to on the forum.

Still that does not change the fact the likes of Ferdinand, Ogden etc generally do have a dislike for us and are quite rightly called out for it.

The thing that struck me about the BT Sport coverage was just how unappealing they made our games for neutral fans. Not the ones that love or hate City but the ones that would think about tuning in for a CL game featuring another club but are 50:50 about it. They completely failed to create any feel good factor which might have persuaded neutrals to follow City's progress in the CL. Contrast that with the build up to the EL final where I expect quite a few neutrals would have been pulled in by the positivity of the build up across the media.

If it was deliberate decision by BT to appeal to United fans it doesn't seem to have been well thought out.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The thing that struck me about the BT Sport coverage was just how unappealing they made our games for neutral fans. Not the ones that love or hate City but the ones that would think about tuning in for a CL game featuring another club but are 50:50 about it. They completely failed to create any feel good factor which might have persuaded neutrals to follow City's progress in the CL. Contrast that with the build up to the EL final where I expect quite a few neutrals would have been pulled in by the positivity of the build up across the media.

If it was deliberate decision by BT to appeal to United fans it doesn't seem to have been well thought out.

This is my main gripe with media coverage - too much seems to create, or even worse, to be aimed at creating an image. That image is absorbed slowly and becomes fact (cf the Sun's Hillsborough lies).

How much is deliberate (Ogden, Jackson) and how much is casual thoughtlessness is difficult to say.

 

[franksinatra]

The thing that struck me about the BT Sport coverage was just how unappealing they made our games for neutral fans. Not the ones that love or hate City but the ones that would think about tuning in for a CL game featuring another club but are 50:50 about it. They completely failed to create any feel good factor which might have persuaded neutrals to follow City's progress in the CL. Contrast that with the build up to the EL final where I expect quite a few neutrals would have been pulled in by the positivity of the build up across the media.

If it was deliberate decision by BT to appeal to United fans it doesn't seem to have been well thought out.

Exactly Cibaman they were unappealing, which again suggests it was hardly the desire of an organisation being slammed for poor viewing figures but the actions of a few poor comentators with an axe to grind, which again reflects my point is was not a commercial decision particularly as most United fans would probably avoid watching the game anyway. BT can rightly be criticised for their choice of panel though.

I do wonder if BT are just stuck in some 80s football stereotype timewarp where barely literate blokes like Ferdinand can indulge in some 'lads bantz' thinking that will appear to the audience. From our own experiences the demographic of a football crowd at City has changed and sadly You wonder if BT are aware of it. It may suit a talksport with a small niche market but to a broader spectrum of viewers sadly fails.

 

[franksinatra]

Here's a thought - how angry is Ferdinand going to be next season, fronting the CL coverage!

The big question is will he? The Champs lge has not proven the honey pot they expected and the content has been criticised also. .

 

[franksinatra]

He doesn't call me a '****'. Instead he calls me a 'posh ****', which compared to him I most certainly am.

I should think so as well that he has acknowledged your elevated social standing.

Sadly being Posh, and like me, a fellow shamesider rarely go together.

 

[pirate]

Here's a thought - how angry is Ferdinand going to be next season, fronting the CL coverage!

not angry enough.

remember the the concerted campaign to rid talkshite of ronnie irani, something similar this summer for Rio?

 

[Chris in London]

The thing that struck me about the BT Sport coverage was just how unappealing they made our games for neutral fans. Not the ones that love or hate City but the ones that would think about tuning in for a CL game featuring another club but are 50:50 about it. They completely failed to create any feel good factor which might have persuaded neutrals to follow City's progress in the CL. Contrast that with the build up to the EL final where I expect quite a few neutrals would have been pulled in by the positivity of the build up across the media.

If it was deliberate decision by BT to appeal to United fans it doesn't seem to have been well thought out.

I was struck by the contrast over the last few days. Only last night before the final I heard some presenter on talksport talk about 'the result every Liverpool fan - the result every English fan - wants.' the contrast between that and the way our CL games were discussed in the media couldn't have been more stark.

I suspect BT's error was signing up a plethora of ex rags and dippers at the beginning of the season to appeal to an audience that for at least half the season would contain a a large number of rags and dippers. When City became the only English team left in the CL they had four matches to show and only the one with the hump and the poisonous ginger dwarf to do them. I think they know their fingers got burned because they steamed full ahead for a particular port and when the destination changed they weren't able to change direction accordingly.

 

[manchester blue]

Exactly Cibaman they were unappealing, which again suggests it was hardly the desire of an organisation being slammed for poor viewing figures but the actions of a few poor comentators with an axe to grind, which again reflects my point is was not a commercial decision particularly as most United fans would probably avoid watching the game anyway. BT can rightly be criticised for their choice of panel though.

I do wonder if BT are just stuck in some 80s football stereotype timewarp where barely literate blokes like Ferdinand can indulge in some 'lads bantz' thinking that will appear to the audience. From our own experiences the demographic of a football crowd at City has changed and sadly You wonder if BT are aware of it. It may suit a talksport with a small niche market but to a broader spectrum of viewers sadly fails.

"lads bantz'

You have hit the nail on the head there. I too do not think it's wholly deliberate from BT. I think that clearly, the inarticulate pundits and nice but dim anchor, are in it for some ill chosen banter and clearly cannot hide their contenpt for us. I doubt I could if I was a pundit to be fair but if I was being paid as well as they are I would damn well try harder than they do. No the blame lies at the door of the management team of BT Sports who have allowed this to happen and have lost thousands of City supporters including me forever. The sooner they go under the better.

 

[2sheikhs]

If I walked past a news stand and saw a paper with the headline, "United in financial meltdown", I'd read it.

If it said, "United post record profits", I wouldn't.

The country is full of gullible plastic rags. It's a case of know your audience. Make rags happy and blues upset means more money.

 

[franksinatra]

If I walked past a news stand and saw a paper with the headline, "United in financial meltdown", I'd read it.

If it said, "United post record profits", I wouldn't.

The country is full of gullible plastic rags. It's a case of know your audience. Make rags happy and blues upset means more money.

That argument could be made for a throwaway 20p paper and arguably more rags would buy it if that headline was about Liverpool but I do not see them heavily criticised.

Would it encourage you to subscribe to a Tv channel and would enough sign up to negate the numbers of opposing supporters who are offended by the insults?