Media Bias

[Pigeonho]

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.

You're not getting it are you? Who was the last club to get taken over by a multi-billionaire, come out of no-where quite literally and buy a berth in the top 4, then win the league? It was us. There have been take overs since us, sure, but not one of them has broken the top 4 - yet. So when a paper makes a headline like this, with Hill-Wood talking about not being able to compete with the top 4 in terms of transfers and wages, who are they going to refer to in their headline? United? No. Chelsea? No. Us? Yes, because we are the latest club to do what Chelsea did. If we hadn't been bought and were still fighting relegation year after year, the headline would be aimed at Chelsea as they would be the last club to have bought their way to the top having come from relative obscurity, though they were winning things pre-Red Rom.
If Vauxhall open up an F1 team and poach the 2 best drivers out there, backed up by GM's billions, they will be referred to as 'money bags Vauxhall', because that's what they will be, a no-body team breaking records financially and buying their way to the top. It's no different to us and that is why we are referred to that way - for now.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

I remember people on here harping on about 'THAT' Rooney goal being shown time and time again last season and about how it's unsurprising given it's a United goal.

I watch Sky Sports an awful lot these days and I don't think I've gone one day without seeing 'THAT' Aguero goal.

Things change with time, and that includes the way adverts are rolled out.

As DD has pointed out, the Aguero goal is probably Sky Sports biggest single moment in it's history and we'll be seeing it for years to come, and rightly so.

People seem to ignore the positive articles that come along about ones club because they are too busy looking out for the negatives to try and add substance to their 'far fetched agenda-beliefs'.

 

[Pigeonho]

I remember people on here harping on about 'THAT' Rooney goal being shown time and time again last season and about how it's unsurprising given it's a United goal.

I watch Sky Sports an awful lot these days and I don't think I've gone one day without seeing 'THAT' Aguero goal.

Things change with time, and that includes the way adverts are rolled out.

As DD has pointed out, the Aguero goal is probably Sky Sports biggest single moment in it's history and we'll be seeing it for years to come, and rightly so.

People seem to ignore the positive articles that come along about ones club because they are too busy looking out for the negatives to try and add substance to their 'far fetched agenda-beliefs'.

Absolutely spot the fuck on.

 

[Marvin]

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.

You're not getting it are you? Who was the last club to get taken over by a multi-billionaire, come out of no-where quite literally and buy a berth in the top 4, then win the league? It was us. There have been take overs since us, sure, but not one of them has broken the top 4 - yet. So when a paper makes a headline like this, with Hill-Wood talking about not being able to compete with the top 4 in terms of transfers and wages, who are they going to refer to in their headline? United? No. Chelsea? No. Us? Yes, because we are the latest club to do what Chelsea did. If we hadn't been bought and were still fighting relegation year after year, the headline would be aimed at Chelsea as they would be the last club to have bought their way to the top having come from relative obscurity, though they were winning things pre-Red Rom.
If Vauxhall open up an F1 team and poach the 2 best drivers out there, backed up by GM's billions, they will be referred to as 'money bags Vauxhall', because that's what they will be, a no-body team breaking records financially and buying their way to the top. It's no different to us and that is why we are referred to that way - for now.

I'm not getting it either.

I know why City attract undue attention from the media for our big money signings, yet Utd and to an extent Chelsea's spending gets ignored. Knowing why doesn't mean our critics are right and don't deserve a response for their hippocritical silence

 

[moomba]

You're not getting it are you? Who was the last club to get taken over by a multi-billionaire, come out of no-where quite literally and buy a berth in the top 4, then win the league? It was us. There have been take overs since us, sure, but not one of them has broken the top 4 - yet. So when a paper makes a headline like this, with Hill-Wood talking about not being able to compete with the top 4 in terms of transfers and wages, who are they going to refer to in their headline? United? No. Chelsea? No. Us? Yes, because we are the latest club to do what Chelsea did. If we hadn't been bought and were still fighting relegation year after year, the headline would be aimed at Chelsea as they would be the last club to have bought their way to the top having come from relative obscurity, though they were winning things pre-Red Rom.
If Vauxhall open up an F1 team and poach the 2 best drivers out there, backed up by GM's billions, they will be referred to as 'money bags Vauxhall', because that's what they will be, a no-body team breaking records financially and buying their way to the top. It's no different to us and that is why we are referred to that way - for now.

I'm clearly not getting it, as I'm arguing no more than the fact that the headline does not match the content of the article, and it casts us in a negative light. I suspect one reason I "don't get it" is that you are continuing your anti-agenda crusade when I've made no suggestion that the article is part of an organised agenda.

I don't really care why other clubs may or may not be called moneybags, if they get headlines inferring that the subject of an article refers to them as moneybags when he clearly didn't they have every reason to be put out.

"MONEYBAGS CITY ARE IN A DIFFERENT LEAGUE TO ARSENAL AND WE CAN'T COMPETE, ADMITS ARSENAL CHAIRMAN".

Did he refer to us as moneybags?
Did he refer to Roman Abramovich in the article as well as Shiekh Mansour?

The headline should be representative of the content of the article, if it isn't that makes for unbalanced reporting.

 

[Pigeonho]

You're not getting it are you? Who was the last club to get taken over by a multi-billionaire, come out of no-where quite literally and buy a berth in the top 4, then win the league? It was us. There have been take overs since us, sure, but not one of them has broken the top 4 - yet. So when a paper makes a headline like this, with Hill-Wood talking about not being able to compete with the top 4 in terms of transfers and wages, who are they going to refer to in their headline? United? No. Chelsea? No. Us? Yes, because we are the latest club to do what Chelsea did. If we hadn't been bought and were still fighting relegation year after year, the headline would be aimed at Chelsea as they would be the last club to have bought their way to the top having come from relative obscurity, though they were winning things pre-Red Rom.
If Vauxhall open up an F1 team and poach the 2 best drivers out there, backed up by GM's billions, they will be referred to as 'money bags Vauxhall', because that's what they will be, a no-body team breaking records financially and buying their way to the top. It's no different to us and that is why we are referred to that way - for now.

I'm clearly not getting it, as I'm arguing no more than the fact that the headline does not match the content of the article, and it casts us in a negative light. I suspect one reason I "don't get it" is that you are continuing your anti-agenda crusade when I've made no suggestion that the article is part of an organised agenda.

I don't really care why other clubs may or may not be called moneybags, if they get headlines inferring that the subject of an article refers to them as moneybags when he clearly didn't they have every reason to be put out.

"MONEYBAGS CITY ARE IN A DIFFERENT LEAGUE TO ARSENAL AND WE CAN'T COMPETE, ADMITS ARSENAL CHAIRMAN".

Did he refer to us as moneybags?
Did he refer to Roman Abramovich in the article as well as Shiekh Mansour?

The headline should be representative of the content of the article, if it isn't that makes for unbalanced reporting.

No, it means the headline has done what it is intended to do - grab the attention. There will be people who bought that paper based on that headline, probably to be then disappointed when, as you rightly say, it had nothing to do with what it said on the tin. It still got the 45p in the coffers though.

 

[moomba]

No, it means the headline has done what it is intended to do - grab the attention. There will be people who bought that paper based on that headline, probably to be then disappointed when, as you rightly say, it had nothing to do with what it said on the tin. It still got the 45p in the coffers though.

So, are we not entitle to question an article and headline that lacks balance, just because it makes the Daily Mail 45p (I don't know who would buy a paper based on that headline).

Again, you seem to be continuing your anti-agenda crusade, whereas I'm simply arguing that the article and headline are misleading, and unbalanced.

 

[hutton who blue]

Hill-Wood is exactly right, and if it's the title you are making a point about well we are a money-bags club aren't we? When Chelsea were doing this when Red Rom first took over and for the seasons after that, they were referred to as money-bags too, as will someone else should it happen again.

I have no problem with the content of the article, or what Hill-Wood says about their club. But he referred to more than just City, and he didn't use the word moneybags at all.

The title is totally misleading, and IMO casts us in a negative light.

How is it a negative, and how is it misleading? Have we earned the money we've spent? No, we've been given it. If I were given £100,000 now and spent it on myself, my friends and my family, someone somewhere would say 'oh here he is, moneybags Pigeonho'. That wouldn't be a negative.

 

[Pigeonho]

No, it means the headline has done what it is intended to do - grab the attention. There will be people who bought that paper based on that headline, probably to be then disappointed when, as you rightly say, it had nothing to do with what it said on the tin. It still got the 45p in the coffers though.

So, are we not entitle to question an article and headline that lacks balance, just because it makes the Daily Mail 45p (I don't know who would buy a paper based on that headline).

Again, you seem to be continuing your anti-agenda crusade, whereas I'm simply arguing that the article and headline are misleading, and unbalanced.

No, I was merely debating it with you, not a crusade at all. We shall agree to disagree.

 

[hutton who blue]

Hill-Wood is exactly right, and if it's the title you are making a point about well we are a money-bags club aren't we? When Chelsea were doing this when Red Rom first took over and for the seasons after that, they were referred to as money-bags too, as will someone else should it happen again.

I have no problem with the content of the article, or what Hill-Wood says about their club. But he referred to more than just City, and he didn't use the word moneybags at all.

The title is totally misleading, and IMO casts us in a negative light.

How is it a negative, and how is it misleading? Have we earned the money we've spent? No, we've been given it. If I were given £100,000 now and spent it on myself, my friends and my family, someone somewhere would say 'oh here he is, moneybags Pigeonho'. That wouldn't be a negative.

Ha ha ha. As conspicuous as a rag turd on a bad tablecloth.