Media Bias

[Didsbury Dave]

Interesting article, and headline here.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2198169/Arsenal-compete-rivals--chairman-Peter-Hill-Wood.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -Wood.html</a>

Are you seriously trying to suggest this article in some way is biased against City?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Maybe people stop debating your posts because they are usually condescending and frequently rude. Just a thought.

I think the point about marketing and demographics has been made and has been accepted, so in some areas there could be more United posters than City, and this could be perceived as biased. I also think the question raised as to how you know equal numbers of posters have been printed hasn't been answered, bearing in mind your logic below that there should be many more posters without United as the majority detest them. As for you knowing BSkyB very well through business, that doesn't wash with me. If you know any more about their strategy and tactics than the rest of us, then I am a Dutchman. Your generalisation about profits though is, unsurprisingly for a media business, or any other for that matter, spot on. BSkyB will do whatever it takes to increase profits, as the News International scandals and the persistent selling of media support for political favour shows.

By the way, do they really have a financial stake in United?

when presented with the facts they will be ignored and sidestepped by someone making some ill- thought out point about man utd having millions of armchair fans who sky need to pander to. The person will totally ignore the fact that for every armchair utd 'fan' there are ten non-utd fans who detest the fuckers. As was proven when 90% of the country celebrated our title win.

So if their flawed logic actually held true, and sky skewed things to pander to their audience, then there would be a huge anti united slant on things. Which is, of course some of their fans belief.

I'll give you another few facts because I know BSKYB and Sky Sports very well indeed, through business. Their goal is to present as high quality and popular product as possible to maximise subscriber numbers and therefore profit. And city's emergence is great news for them as it freshens up that product. It makes it exciting. The last thing they need is a sterile product where the same teams finish in the same position every season.

Which was what was happening before we came along.

I told you. Total silence in response to these points.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Maybe people stop debating your posts because they are usually condescending and frequently rude. Just a thought.

I think the point about marketing and demographics has been made and has been accepted, so in some areas there could be more United posters than City, and this could be perceived as biased. I also think the question raised as to how you know equal numbers of posters have been printed hasn't been answered, bearing in mind your logic below that there should be many more posters without United as the majority detest them. As for you knowing BSkyB very well through business, that doesn't wash with me. If you know any more about their strategy and tactics than the rest of us, the I am a Dutchman. Your generalisation about profits though is, unsurprisingly for a media business, or any other for that matter, spot on. BSkyB will do whatever it takes to increase profits, as the News International scandals and the persistent selling of media support for political favour shows.

By the way, do they really have a financial stake in United?

when presented with the facts they will be ignored and sidestepped by someone making some ill- thought out point about man utd having millions of armchair fans who sky need to pander to. The person will totally ignore the fact that for every armchair utd 'fan' there are ten non-utd fans who detest the fuckers. As was proven when 90% of the country celebrated our title win.

So if their flawed logic actually held true, and sky skewed things to pander to their audience, then there would be a huge anti united slant on things. Which is, of course some of their fans belief.

I'll give you another few facts because I know BSKYB and Sky Sports very well indeed, through business. Their goal is to present as high quality and popular product as possible to maximise subscriber numbers and therefore profit. And city's emergence is great news for them as it freshens up that product. It makes it exciting. The last thing they need is a sterile product where the same teams finish in the same position every season.

Which was what was happening before we came along.

I told you. Total silence in response to these points.

Hard to understand your convoluted English, but the main thing I note is that you totally ignored my point about the corresponding "Every Goal Matters" TV advert, which is considerably higher impact than the billboard.

You also totally ignored my point about the fact that there are ten Sky customers who detest Man United for every one who likes them. As proved by the reaction to our title win (one of Skysports greatest ever days, incidentally).

But I'm afraid you are a Dutchman, Johan. I deal with senior management at SkySports from Leeds and Osterley every single day. I socialise with them fairly regularly. I'm not going into more detail but several people on this site know why. I know all about the poster campaign, and all their other campaigns, in ways which would surprise you.

You can choose to disbelieve me if you want, that's your perogative. But I don't tell lies on here.

You're just another football fan with an eye patch on, his head in the clouds and a persecution complex, I'm afraid. The fact that you think Sky have a stake in Man United proves that. Just a thought.

 

[moomba]

I can guarantee you now that if QPR break the top 4 and go on to winning the league, (unlikely I know, just using them as an example for obvious reasons), they will be the ones mentioned in such headlines as this. When Chelsea bought the league, (which is what we have done whether people like it or not {personally I love it}), they were referred to in such terms as we have been in this headline, because they were the ones splashing their rich owners cash when just months before he came along they were being threatened with liquidation. They are an established club now not just in England's top clubs, but Europe-wide too, if not world-wide. We are the new kids on the block, the upstarts in many-a-fans eyes and that is why we are referred to in the way we are in this headline because you see, Moomba, we have come along with our pockets lined with billions and gone absolutely bonkers. We haven't done it quietly either, we've spent silly money on players not worth that money, and plucked some world talent from clubs arguably bigger than us in their own countries and paid rather large, eye-catching sums of money both on those players transfers and of course their wages. That will instantly bring headlines like this for some time to come, because we are the latest club to do such a thing but like I say, if QPR do the same we did it will be them headlined in articles like this, not us. Infact the only reason they haven't been used in this article is because they aren't a top 4 club, yet it is them who are the latest club to go bonkers in the transfer market. It's not a negative, it's just what fans of other clubs already think anyway, most likely.

If QPR get the same treatment they'll be entitled to complain about the headline.

-- Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:39 am --

Interesting article, and headline here.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2198169/Arsenal-compete-rivals--chairman-Peter-Hill-Wood.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -Wood.html</a>

Are you seriously trying to suggest this article in some way is biased against City?

No, but the headline singles out City when more than one club were mentioned in the article, and it uses a term that has negative connotations when the term wasn't used by the subject of the article at any stage.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think a lot of this is all about perspective.

If you care about something and you believe it/they is being treated unfairly (or is likely to) you will look for things that confirm that view. This is partly because you naturally want to identify it so that you can act upon it, but it is also because we all like to be vindicated. It is an entirely natural human impulse.

I have found over the years as my politics have drifted slightly to the right that I notice a bigger pro-left bias in the BBC than I used to. This is because as I have moved away from that position, I notice it when views that are different from my own are promoted through the media.

It is the same with City. Some fans believe there is an agenda so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Every dig, every slight becomes part of a concerted attack on the club, whereas anything positive tends to get overlooked. The exception that proves the rule.

I have already stated on here that I believe that there is a bias of sorts against City, but rather than be based around any conspiracy or agenda it is merely a function of numbers and finances, and to that extent I disagree with DD. There is more money to be gained from praising united than criticising them imo.

I don't believe most people who believe this conspiracy are paranoid or deluded. They have a view on the world and how it works and whilst it is not one I entirely share it is absurd to suggest that the world operates along completely egalitarian lines. The truth, as ever, lies somewhere in the middle, but I don't personally think it stretches as far as an organised agenda against our club.

 

[Pigeonho]

I can guarantee you now that if QPR break the top 4 and go on to winning the league, (unlikely I know, just using them as an example for obvious reasons), they will be the ones mentioned in such headlines as this. When Chelsea bought the league, (which is what we have done whether people like it or not {personally I love it}), they were referred to in such terms as we have been in this headline, because they were the ones splashing their rich owners cash when just months before he came along they were being threatened with liquidation. They are an established club now not just in England's top clubs, but Europe-wide too, if not world-wide. We are the new kids on the block, the upstarts in many-a-fans eyes and that is why we are referred to in the way we are in this headline because you see, Moomba, we have come along with our pockets lined with billions and gone absolutely bonkers. We haven't done it quietly either, we've spent silly money on players not worth that money, and plucked some world talent from clubs arguably bigger than us in their own countries and paid rather large, eye-catching sums of money both on those players transfers and of course their wages. That will instantly bring headlines like this for some time to come, because we are the latest club to do such a thing but like I say, if QPR do the same we did it will be them headlined in articles like this, not us. Infact the only reason they haven't been used in this article is because they aren't a top 4 club, yet it is them who are the latest club to go bonkers in the transfer market. It's not a negative, it's just what fans of other clubs already think anyway, most likely.

If QPR get the same treatment they'll be entitled to complain about the headline.

-- Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:39 am --

Interesting article, and headline here.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2198169/Arsenal-compete-rivals--chairman-Peter-Hill-Wood.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -Wood.html</a>

Are you seriously trying to suggest this article in some way is biased against City?

No, but the headline singles out City when more than one club were mentioned in the article, and it uses a term that has negative connotations when the term wasn't used by the subject of the article at any stage.

Yes, and the reason for that is that we are the latest one out of those clubs mentioned who have broken the top 4 by spending an obscene amount of money, so it's obviously us who will get the headline. As I say, if this time next year the top 4 had finished Us, United, Chelsea and QPR, and QPR had gone on another spending spree close-season, such a headline would be aimed at them because they would by then be the latest club to buy their way into the top 4. It's just a headline, that's all and what has it done? Caught the attention.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I think a lot of this is all about perspective.

If you care about something and you believe it/they is being treated unfairly (or is likely to) you will look for things that confirm that view. This is partly because you naturally want to identify it so that you can act upon it, but it is also because we all like to be vindicated. It is an entirely natural human impulse.

I have found over the years as my politics have drifted slightly to the right that I notice a bigger pro-left bias in the BBC than I used to. This is because as I have moved away from that position, I notice it when views that are different from my own are promoted through the media.

It is the same with City. Some fans believe there is an agenda so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Every dig, every slight becomes part of a concerted attack on the club, whereas anything positive tends to get overlooked. The exception that proves the rule.

Now that's a sensible and intelligent point and one I agree with.

 

[Shirley]

Media bias and AGENDA, two different topics.
The OP is discussing media bias which I do witness from certain outlets and rag hacks occasionally but not on a level it can be accused of being an AGENDA.

 

[Sigh]

After two games, I heard this:

"A slow start to the season for Manchester City...".

I agreed.

 

[moomba]

Yes, and the reason for that is that we are the latest one out of those clubs mentioned who have broken the top 4 by spending an obscene amount of money, so it's obviously us who will get the headline. As I say, if this time next year the top 4 had finished Us, United, Chelsea and QPR, and QPR had gone on another spending spree close-season, such a headline would be aimed at them because they would by then be the latest club to buy their way into the top 4. It's just a headline, that's all and what has it done? Caught the attention.

Obscene amount of money? We spent what we as a club felt we could afford to achieve success. As a result we've increased our income by tens of millions, soon to be hundreds of millions. Struggling to work out what is any more obscene about our spending than any other club that spends money on footballers.

And whatever reasons are for the Daily Mail to single us out, the headline does not represent the words of Hill-Wood, and it makes the story out to be something totally different than what it was.

I could also point out that Arsenal spent a similar amount to us this summer, Chelsea by comparison spent tens of millions more.