Media Thread 2017/18

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Just because we are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get us.

Not all media hate us, not every article about other teams or players is positive. Sometimes the media will say nice things about some of our players or club. All of these are true.

However like many blues, I feel that the is an anti city bias amongst the media in general. In a significant number of debates , discussions, or analysis it seems that we are always belittled, our attachievments under played, our players at fault or not as good. We set half a dozen all time top flight records including points and goals, and yet aren't great like the invincibles because we haven't done it over a number of years. The media have to admit we were the better team last year because the facts say so, but you feel that on any issue where it is opinion we are going to get the shitty end of the stick.

Drop Stones and Walker. Let's pretend that Rashford, Lingard and Young are world beaters. Sterling is gun totting, lazy, bling, and not as good as Jordan f**king Ibe. Then wonder why England fail.

And to the WUMS on here, you know who you are. Have fun, we got 100 points and Sterling won the league.

That is what you get from journos and pundits who are "fans" of other clubs, who as Frank says, view the game through THEIR own prism.
I just ignore the fuckers. We all know the culprits, when it comes to shitting on us, so I just don't read/listen.

 

[bluealf]

I see :)

 

[Neville Kneville]

Nothing is the same for everyone and none of us have access to all the info or time to determine if everything is the same. Life does not fit perfectly like that.

But the point Pidge is making earlier is fans of other clubs think they have proof of bias. Its just a consequence of viewing something through their own prism and displaying a bias they then criticise others for.

We do have proof of bias though.

Several of the Utd supporting pundits have openly admitted it, live on tv.

Ferdinand, tbf, has tried to rise above it in recent Champions League games, but he, Scholes, plus Neville on Sky have admitted to feeling totally ill at ease watching City do well.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I think Scholes and Neville have generally been very fair with their TV comments about City though both are clearly United fans. The difference for me is that they appreciate good football and "tell it like it is." Both have also been very critical of United under Peg and Neville has been defending Sterling over the last few months and said he should play ahead of Rashford tomorrow for example. Both of them have also not fallen for the Pogba hype and have repeatedly criticised his perfomances. After a shaky start on TV Ferdinand has started to be more balanced and measured.
The people that piss me off in the media are those like Maddock, Rudd, and Ashton who are incapable of impartial coverage and morons like Custis and Castles who are just nasty as well as being stupid.

 

[schfc6]

Because we weren’t relevant and had no players as such. Arsenal did, and Seaman was. I got 2002 mixed up with 1998. United were relevant and Beckham the star player. Cue utter vitriol when he fucked up.

I'm not the biggest conspiracist, but what you're saying is totally different. Yes Beckham was slaughtered, but his petulance arguably cost his country dear. Sterling is regularly slaughtered for not being better than everyone else. That's a little different. England Monday first half was as impressive as England have been in years. 15 minutes where everyone was flat, you guessed it, Sterling's fault. Not a shit Alli, a wasteful Lingard, static Kane or a painfully one footed Young. All Sterling and a mass media clamour for Rashford.

I agree, many fans think they're hard done to, I get it. Liverpool, United may get some negative press, normally when deserved. But just ask any United fan to compare Rashford's media perception to that of Sterling. Show a Liverpool fan that weird tweet from the Mirror about Salah's bravery. Show them that Sunday Suppliment where they call City morally bankrupt and slaughter the signings of Toure and David Silva all based on Mancini being in the ground, which he wasn't.

I agree, all clubs get some rough some smooth. We seem to get a lot more rough than smooth.
Just look at England, the media are desperate to get Rashford in the side, he's had a utter shite season and has regressed massively. His own manager doesn't trust him and the more knowledgable fans are beginning to notice he's basically Darren Huckerby.

Yet Sterling whom has convinced some of the biggest doubters, is loved by the best manager in the game, has won us countless points and been integral to the best PL side ever and the media are desperate to see him dropped.

Now be honest with yourself, if Liverpool or United had a young forward who'd pissed the league as a key player, had a hand in over 40 goals and had won loads of points with his determination. Do you think after 55 minutes of the first game the media would be all over him?

Rooney never scored a World Cup goal did he? He was lauded till then very end.

 

[ballinio]

I'm not the biggest conspiracist, but what you're saying is totally different. Yes Beckham was slaughtered, but his petulance arguably cost his country dear. Sterling is regularly slaughtered for not being better than everyone else. That's a little different. England Monday first half was as impressive as England have been in years. 15 minutes where everyone was flat, you guessed it, Sterling's fault. Not a shit Alli, a wasteful Lingard, static Kane of painfully one footed Young. All Sterling and a mass media clamour for Rashford.

I agree, many fans think they're hard done to, I get it. Liverpool, United may get some negative press, normally when deserved. But just ask any United fan to compare Rashford's media perception to that of Sterling. Show a Liverpool fan that weird tweet from the Mirror about Salah's bravery. Show them that Sunday Suppliment where they call City morally bankrupt and slaughter the signings of Toure and David Silva.

I agree, all clubs get some rough some smooth. We seem to get a lot more rough than smooth.
Just look at England, the media are desperate to get Rashford in the side, he's had a utter shite season and has regressed massively. His own manager doesn't trust him and the more knowledgable fans are beginning to notice he's basically Darren Huckerby.
Yet Sterling whom has convinced some of the biggest doubters, is loved by the best manager in the game, has won us countless points and been integral to the best PL side ever and the medis are desperate to see him dropped.

Now be honest with yourself, if Liverpool or United had a young forward who'd pissed the league as a key player, had a hand in over 40 goals and had won loads of points with his determination. Do you think after 55 minutes of the first game the media would be all over him?

Rooney never scored a World Cup goal did he? He was lauded till then very end.

You sir are bang on but your wasting your time with a couple on here.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I'm not the biggest conspiracist, but what you're saying is totally different. Yes Beckham was slaughtered, but his petulance arguably cost his country dear. Sterling is regularly slaughtered for not being better than everyone else. That's a little different. England Monday first half was as impressive as England have been in years. 15 minutes where everyone was flat, you guessed it, Sterling's fault. Not a shit Alli, a wasteful Lingard, static Kane of painfully one footed Young. All Sterling and a mass media clamour for Rashford.

I agree, many fans think they're hard done to, I get it. Liverpool, United may get some negative press, normally when deserved. But just ask any United fan to compare Rashford's media perception to that of Sterling. Show a Liverpool fan that weird tweet from the Mirror about Salah's bravery. Show them that Sunday Suppliment where they call City morally bankrupt and slaughter the signings of Toure and David Silva.

I agree, all clubs get some rough some smooth. We seem to get a lot more rough than smooth.
Just look at England, the media are desperate to get Rashford in the side, he's had a utter shite season and has regressed massively. His own manager doesn't trust him and the more knowledgable fans are beginning to notice he's basically Darren Huckerby.
Yet Sterling whom has convinced some of the biggest doubters, is loved by the best manager in the game, has won us countless points and been integral to the best PL side ever and the medis are desperate to see him dropped.

Now be honest with yourself, if Liverpool or United had a young forward who'd pissed the league as a key player, had a hand in over 40 goals and had won loads of points with his determination. Do you think after 55 minutes of the first game the media would be all over him?

Rooney never scored a World Cup goal did he? He was lauded till then very end.

The interesting thing about Rashford is I have spoken to plenty of match-going rags who say he has been poor this season, inconsistent with a poor final ball. Contrast this with the thousands of social media fanboys and media pundits who see a 10-minute TV cameo from him and suddenly he is apparently world class. I think there is a huge gap between the knowledge of proper football fans who attend matches and the fanboys. The same was true of Beckham who was lauded as some sort of God by the media but I worked with three rag season-ticket holders for seven years who said he was totally overrated. In those days Scholes was never really praised in the media though he was clearly a million times better than Beckham.

 

[Bozzie]

There's an article by Martin Samuel today "why can't England enjoy winning?". It's next to the "who should start for England, Rashford or Sterling?" poll but the thick bastards can't understand that the latter answers the question. It's supposed to be a squad of 23 guys representing our country, collectively, to the best of their combined ability with the support of the nation to help them along. But nobody wants that angle, that doesn't generate clicks so everything about the team has to be confrontational: Rashford in for Sterling is just so much better than Rashford in for Lingard, or Wellbeck in for either of them. It's 'red' versus 'blue', the nations 'golden boy' versus the nations 'whipping boy' and they delight in the negativity they cause. Southgate can't 'rotate' his squad, he has to 'drop' players so the media can praise and/or criticise in equal measure, sometimes both in the same article. We've not enjoyed a great deal of success in the World Cup recently so it's time the media just got behind the squad as a whole nstead if trying to create divisions.

 

[asahartford1]

I'm not the biggest conspiracist, but what you're saying is totally different. Yes Beckham was slaughtered, but his petulance arguably cost his country dear. Sterling is regularly slaughtered for not being better than everyone else. That's a little different. England Monday first half was as impressive as England have been in years. 15 minutes where everyone was flat, you guessed it, Sterling's fault. Not a shit Alli, a wasteful Lingard, static Kane of painfully one footed Young. All Sterling and a mass media clamour for Rashford.

I agree, many fans think they're hard done to, I get it. Liverpool, United may get some negative press, normally when deserved. But just ask any United fan to compare Rashford's media perception to that of Sterling. Show a Liverpool fan that weird tweet from the Mirror about Salah's bravery. Show them that Sunday Suppliment where they call City morally bankrupt and slaughter the signings of Toure and David Silva.

I agree, all clubs get some rough some smooth. We seem to get a lot more rough than smooth.
Just look at England, the media are desperate to get Rashford in the side, he's had a utter shite season and has regressed massively. His own manager doesn't trust him and the more knowledgable fans are beginning to notice he's basically Darren Huckerby.
Yet Sterling whom has convinced some of the biggest doubters, is loved by the best manager in the game, has won us countless points and been integral to the best PL side ever and the medis are desperate to see him dropped.

Now be honest with yourself, if Liverpool or United had a young forward who'd pissed the league as a key player, had a hand in over 40 goals and had won loads of points with his determination. Do you think after 55 minutes of the first game the media would be all over him?

Rooney never scored a World Cup goal did he? He was lauded till then very end.

Behave. Don't talk sense on here.

 

[johnevans]

You sir are bang on but your wasting your time with a couple on here.

Ditto, agree totally.. accompany ‘schfc6’ to the Head Teacher’s office for a ‘Good Work’ stamp and some Dolly Mixtures.. you collectively summed up the problem of the media bias which has dogged City since the takeover, as well as the WUMs who delight in being perverse about it.. you deserve to be rewarded!