Media Bias

[Pigeonho]

Is this what we have become
Now we are debating the amount of fucking posters abt

Un-fuckin-believable
Let it fucking go,there is no agenda!

Where's the agenda bias in this question? Pidge was stating facts to back-up his debate, one where he states everybody is deluded, paranoid or in another world with the fairies.

But while you're there, why are you even bothering? Think about it, these people you are claiming to be mentally unstable are obviously not going to change their minds because certain individuals live in that perfect utopian world where everything is visible and competely honest.

But you know that, so why bother?

Out of interest, and for factual content, how do you know these were printed in equal measure; as we're on the Rafa waggon at the moment?

NB. This is not paranoia/bias/agenda based.

Because why wouldn't there be? Infact, seeing as we are the Champions and now a massive draw, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more City ones dotted about than United, especially seeing as they have 'that' goal on ours, which of course has been their ad plug alll summer, (Tyler's soundbite). Like I say though, why wouldn't there be?

And so it should be. I personally have no problems, or interest, with how many posters are made or not. The truth is though, that they will not just print equal posters, they will have checked out demographic figures relating to club support and strategically placed them in order to capture the widest audience. Now, if that audience of armchair supporters is greater in a given area then that's how the posters will be styled, ie. the reason why one in Ashton-Under-Lyne (Oldham Road) is pure United.

My view that it isn't about agenda/bias because of the club, it's purely about money; selling the brand to the customer. This is the same for most media outlets, getting their wares in the punters hand, whether that be for the actual immediate sale or for the adverts that they are paid for.

United have given them this for years, we have been a support act. Now though, we can be marketed alongside them and therefore creates more stories/interest, especially after our Fergie Time heroics.

As I said, it's simple economics (unless it's certain journo's getting hot under the collar) that drives the United bandwaggon. This comes across as bias and as a City fan it's easier to spot. Does that make City fans deluded or paranoid? I think not, it makes them human and shows how much they care for their club. A natural instinct that has been there since the dawn of time.

People loving their club, who'd have thought it.

I agree with the strategy point, and that makes perfect sense. This is just a snippet of what the agenda brigade think though, because De Niro noticed a Sky United poster and posted it to back up his Agenda theory. There's one at the bottom of Broadway near me, but I see no need to post a photo of it because it is what it is - a poster of Sky advertising their product.

It goes beyond that though, the agenda theory, it goes way beyond a poster being put up on a billboard. When the fixtures were due they all got into a tizz about it, but they all went very quiet when it was infact United playing away at home on a Monday for their first fixture when they were all convinced it would be us. As I say, it goes way beyond.

 

[The Future's Blue]

I agree with the strategy point, and that makes perfect sense. This is just a snippet of what the agenda brigade think though, because De Niro noticed a Sky United poster and posted it to back up his Agenda theory. There's one at the bottom of Broadway near me, but I see no need to post a photo of it because it is what it is - a poster of Sky advertising their product.

It goes beyond that though, the agenda theory, it goes way beyond a poster being put up on a billboard. When the fixtures were due they all got into a tizz about it, but they all went very quiet when it was infact United playing away at home on a Monday for their first fixture when they were all convinced it would be us. As I say, it goes way beyond.

Everybody has their reasons and there are many reasons which lead to peoples thinking. The Sky posters are just one instance in a whole line of United tinged experiences they have been through. For me, it's quite understandable why City fans have a bit of a complex regarding United. It's been a long, hard road for us coming to the fore, maybe the next 20 years will see a complete U-turn in opinion.

 

[moomba]

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>

 

[Didsbury Dave]

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.

 

[Pigeonho]

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>

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.

 

[moomba]

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 several clubs in the article, not just City alone and he didn't use the word moneybags at all.

The title is totally misleading, and IMO casts us in a negative light. And as far as I'm concerned referring to us as simply moneybags totally undervalues what we are as a club.

 

[Pigeonho]

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.

 

[moomba]

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.

The title bears no relevance to the content of the article, thats why it's misleading. Hill-Wood refers to Abramovich as well as Sheikh Mansour, why is City singled out in the headline?

And calling us moneybags totally undervalues what we are as a club. Do you refer to us as moneybags at the pub before the game? Hill-Wood doesn't refer to us as moneybags (he doesn't actually refer to the club at all, just our owner). So why has someone taken it upon themselves to use that term?

It's not the biggest issue in the world, and I know that you will refuse to accept that there is any unbalanced coverage relating to City, but I think this was a shocker of a headline.

 

[Pigeonho]

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.

The title bears no relevance to the content of the article, thats why it's misleading. Hill-Wood refers to Abramovich as well as Sheikh Mansour, why is City singled out in the headline?

And calling us moneybags totally undervalues what we are as a club. Do you refer to us as moneybags at the pub before the game? Hill-Wood doesn't refer to us as moneybags (he doesn't actually refer to the club at all, just our owner). So why has someone taken it upon themselves to use that term?

It's not the biggest issue in the world, and I know that you will refuse to accept that there is any unbalanced coverage relating to City, but I think this was a shocker of a headline.

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.

 

[BluePurgatory]

As far as any agenda goes, I only wish that blues would stop promoting any anti city shit with links and copies of articles. Because of this, only on here does it look like their is a media agenda.