You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
cleavers
Moderator
Thanks, that was why I was asking if there was a reason. Strangely I don't follow his life, so I wasn't aware he'd had a birthday.Might have something to do with him just having a major birthday
Also I'm fully aware of Frank Swift part in the disaster, but thanks for reminding those who weren't.
Post of the day!Very well said.
Was he selling tickets for the event?
Impeccable One
Well-Known Member
There is an agenda but not of the form you are suggesting. The reason that article is written that way is because the writer is writing for his readers. In other words he is writing what they want to read. This encourages them to keep coming back for more. As united has millions of supporters Sky and others want to pander to them not piss them off.
That is far too sensible of a comment. Please find another forum to peddle your sound logical statements on ;)
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
There is an agenda but not of the form you are suggesting. The reason that article is written that way is because the writer is writing for his readers. In other words he is writing what they want to read. This encourages them to keep coming back for more. As united has millions of supporters Sky and others want to pander to them not piss them off.
And therein lies the agenda.
This is an extract from https://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/journalism-news/ethics-and-sports-journalism-on-ice-agenda/ (August 2017)
"Sports journalism: ethical vacuum or ethical minefield?
That is the question at this year’s annual conference at the Institute of Communication Ethics in October.
Sky Sports News executive editor Andy Cairns (right) is the keynote speaker at an event organised by Tom Bradshaw and Daragh Minogue – and which is believed to be the first academic conference in the UK dedicated to ethics in sports journalism.
The selection of papers exploring a range of ethical issues in sports communications include the latest research by Professor Suzanne Franks on women in sports journalism, Jonathan Cable on the impact of clickbait in football reporting and Tracie Edmundson on the digital sports media landscape in Australian sport."
They know exactly what they are doing.
Ducado
Well-Known Member
And therein lies the agenda.
This is an extract from https://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/journalism-news/ethics-and-sports-journalism-on-ice-agenda/ (August 2017)
"Sports journalism: ethical vacuum or ethical minefield?
That is the question at this year’s annual conference at the Institute of Communication Ethics in October.
Sky Sports News executive editor Andy Cairns (right) is the keynote speaker at an event organised by Tom Bradshaw and Daragh Minogue – and which is believed to be the first academic conference in the UK dedicated to ethics in sports journalism.
The selection of papers exploring a range of ethical issues in sports communications include the latest research by Professor Suzanne Franks on women in sports journalism, Jonathan Cable on the impact of clickbait in football reporting and Tracie Edmundson on the digital sports media landscape in Australian sport."
They know exactly what they are doing.
Something that many of us have known for quite some time, when you think about it, it's a sound business decision "give your customers what they want, and they will keep coming back for more" eyes on screens means more clicks on advertisements which generates some income, and as print sales fall through the floor it's the only way they are going to make some money from their craft, however as time goes by less and less people are clicking on advertisements and I predict that in the near future most writing will be by fans for fans
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Very true. It's not a conspiracy but is naked commercial bias. The only thing that helps drive the UK media audience more than propaganda about United is negative coverage of City (and sometimes Liverpool) which panders to the Rags large fanbase. The good news is that I believe this is slowly changing and the bigger we become the more it will change. We are now getting more positive coverage outside the UK. The other positive is that this sort of "fake news" lulls the Rags' fanbase into a false sense of security and, as a club, we are exploiting that complacency.There is an agenda but not of the form you are suggesting. The reason that article is written that way is because the writer is writing for his readers. In other words he is writing what they want to read. This encourages them to keep coming back for more. As united has millions of supporters Sky and others want to pander to them not piss them off.
Jazzman
Well-Known Member
I don't really understand why it is so important to some whether "it" is called an agenda, commercial bias or something else. This is in my humble opinion beside the point. Fact is that lots of media tends to communicate negatively when it comes to City, and positively when it comes to other teams. "It" is there for those who want to see. It does not go away by discussing what to call "it".Very true. It's not a conspiracy but is naked commercial bias. The only thing that helps drive the UK media audience more than propaganda about United is negative coverage of City (and sometimes Liverpool) which panders to the Rags large fanbase. The good news is that I believe this is slowly changing and the bigger we become the more it will change. We are now getting more positive coverage outside the UK. The other positive is that this sort of "fake news" lulls the Rags' fanbase into a false sense of security and, as a club, we are exploiting that complacency.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,259
I don't really understand why it is so important to some whether "it" is called an agenda, commercial bias or something else. This is in my humble opinion beside the point. Fact is that lots of media tends to communicate negatively when it comes to City, and positively when it comes to other teams. "It" is there for those who want to see. It does not go away by discussing what to call "it".
It's not just what "it" is called; what "it " means in the first place is something else that people cannot agree on.
Usually the people arguing that there is no agenda mean that there is no SPECTRE-like global conspiracy headed up by a shady Mr Big, with reach that extends to referees, the media, UEFA, FIFA and beyond whose sole ambition is to thwart the plans of Manchester City.
Usually the people who argue that there is an agenda mean that a number of individuals and bodies in different spheres have ulterior motives and vested interests in producing output that is either contrary to the the interests of Manchester City, or which promotes Manchester United at the expense of its closest and fiercest rivals (principally, Manchester City) or both.
Both schools of thought seem to me to be entirely valid.
Usually the people arguing that there is no agenda mean that there is no SPECTRE-like global conspiracy headed up by a shady Mr Big, with reach that extends to referees, the media, UEFA, FIFA and beyond whose sole ambition is to thwart the plans of Manchester City.
Is this why we appointed John Bond? Bloody Swales couldn't get anything right.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.