Media discussion - 2024/25

Morning all.

Now just to give you the heads up it's derby day on Sunday and those pesky little terrors in the British media will be publishing all sorts of lies and waffle to make everyone hate on City even more and try to make everyone worry over nothing, be it 115,Pep, Grealish's hair blah blah blah...

Treat it as it should be treated. Laugh out loud, let them kick us when we are down because their is nothing more dangerous than a wounded lion.
Enjoy the hype (for those that read it). See you Sunday.
 
I'd love to know how some of these larger websites, and newspapers work in the modern day, in terms of editorial decision making.

I'm guessing it's not like the old press days where there would be a smokey sports or football meeting every day with lots of people debating which articles should be headline news, what the headline should read, how the article should be fine tuned to get home the message the paper wants to get across.

I'm trying to understand how this bias we all see against city in the media actually materialises in the background. Are there really chief editorial people setting the agenda based on word from above?

Or is there just a general culture of like-mindedness built up over a long period of hatred (from our success) by many journalists, who just happen to be red shirt supporters?

Or is it a mixture of both, in that the management ensure that pro-city journalists simply aren't put into positions where their articles are submitted by the media outlet?
 
Last edited:
deano ou812 said:
It’s a pile on at the moment and the media are loving their day in the sun so to speak..
Click to expand...
We may not turn the season around. We may not win anything this season. But, if we do, we have to somehow remind these feckers that they kfa and when they keep writing us off, it only reinforces the fact their scribblings have no weight or relevance.
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
I'd love to know how some of these larger websites, and newspapers work in the modern day, in terms of editorial decision making.

I'm guessing it's not like the old press days where there would be a smokey sports or football meeting every day with lots of people debating which articles should be headline news, what the headline should read, how the article should be fine tuned to get home the message the paper wants to get across.

I'm trying to understand how this bias we all see against city in the media actually materialises in the background. Are there really chief editorial people setting the agenda based on word from above?

Or is there just a general culture of like-mindedness built up over a long period of hatred (from our success) by many journalists, who just happen to be red shirt supporters?

Or is it a mixture of both, in that the management ensure that pro-city journalists simply aren't put into positions where their articles are submitted by the media outlet?
Click to expand...
In their heads, 'journalists' nowadays will be imagining they're editorialising around the Washington Post table like Jason ('Ben Bradlee') Robards, Robert ('Bob Woodward') Redford, Dustin ('Carl Bernstein') Hoffman and the rest discussing the next moves in investigating the Watergate scandal in 'All The President's Men'. There'll be gravitas a-plenty in their simple little minds, for sure.

But in reality, it'll be like a bunch of infant school kids running riot at an unsupervised birthday party, with ice cream and jelly thrown everywhere and all sorts of mayhem going on.

Let them do their worst between now and Sunday's game; between now and whenever we get our groove back and start winning again; between now and when we royally shaft the Red Cartel/PL over those trumped up 'breaches'.

F**k 'em.
 
Last edited:
Another day, another HYS comment was removed

Thank you for recently contributing to the BBC website.
Unfortunately, we've removed your comment because it broke the house rules
This is the text you wrote:
Neanderthal male fans.

Your comment was considered to have broken the following House Rule:

"We reserve the right to fail comments which...

Are considered likely to disrupt, provoke, attack or offend others Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable Contain swear words or other language likely to offend"



My reply to the cretins at the BBC

So in the HYS section there are 100's of 'men' giving woman's football a kicking. Please tell me what is really insulting about calling them Neanderthal men in reply to a poster asking why they are like that. I fail to see it breaking any of your COC's.
In fact, having just read your COC's I'm surprised so many misogynistic comments remain in that thread. It is always funny how you moderate some comments and others seem to fly right under your nose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.