Media Thread 2017/18

[dickie davies]

Why would you want a blue reporting on City? So he can be biased in our favour is bias not the exact thing people on here criticise the media for on here?

I know of the perfect candidate to work on our behalf in the media

 

[mat]

It's a shame, because there are some legitimate grievances with the media coverage that the club receives but threads like this (and the previous "agenda" ones) just get clogged up with petty gripes about fairly trivial stuff, and it cheapens the argument. As a result, outsiders are less sympathetic when we have genuine cause to complain, because we're seen, rightly or wrongly, as a somewhat paranoid fanbase.

It's better to rise above most of the stuff that is written about us. The newspaper industry is in steady decline, and our successes are all the sweeter knowing that the likes of Ogden, Jackson etc are willing us to fail.

Close the thread Ric and put this as a sticky.

It's spot on.

 

[bluemoonmatt]

I definitely feel we need to separate what constitutes media bias AGAINST us from media bias TOWARDS other 'certain' clubs. The much referred to rag/dipper/arse/haringey term. I give not a single fuck if the fail or SSN want to bang on about the rags I can choose (not to) buy or watch either media product, what does irk me is when articles in which we are directly linked (ie we are the headline) has an overt and sinister negative slant where if it were written about other clubs that reporting angle would not be taken, the ideal examples are the difference in the mirrors reporting of the Lukaku and walker deals and obviously the very tiresome seat counting that seems to be in fashion. If a paper wants to put our win over Madrid in a friendly as story ten or whatever, well below the lead story of how a convo between pogshit and neymar obviously means his signing is imminent then I'll not be losing sleep over it. If were not talked about in favour of another team then they can suit themselves. Its when they either openly lie or belittle us when I begin to seethe.

 

[mcfc1632]

LOL

You think all city fans agree with the utter fuckin bollocks thats wrote on here?

Most of the stuff Frank writes is spot on, he may go to far on defending some dodgy stuff, but overall he holds.his own.

I can almost sense some city fans craving negativity in the press to keep this paronoid shit going.

Not all of course - just a fucking large number.

I tell you what would be interesting - and that is if the mods were to attach a poll to this thread, simple question.

"Do you think that there is a level of anti-CITY bias in the coverage of premier league football by the media?"

It would be interesting to see the result and if, as I suspect, there is a fair percentage that considers that to be the case then perhaps some 'fervent' posters could 'allow' those of that view to discuss it amongst themselves.

 

[blue by birth]

I don`t remember that piece being written by SB and I know for certain that he was furious about that incident.That person was never to be seen on the Sports Desk again.

I never implied it was Brennan mate... just asked if the other blue remembered it in my reply to the muen being a rag paper.
I know it wasn't SB but was still sanctioned by the muen wasn't it.

 

[mcfc1632]

It's a shame, because there are some legitimate grievances with the media coverage that the club receives but threads like this (and the previous "agenda" ones) just get clogged up with petty gripes about fairly trivial stuff, and it cheapens the argument. As a result, outsiders are less sympathetic when we have genuine cause to complain, because we're seen, rightly or wrongly, as a somewhat paranoid fanbase.

It's better to rise above most of the stuff that is written about us. The newspaper industry is in steady decline, and our successes are all the sweeter knowing that the likes of Ogden, Jackson etc are willing us to fail.

I would not disagree with any of that - and I would shout from the rooftops that the way to deal with this is to win a lot of trophies and then some more and after a generation or 2 it will have all swung the other way - we will probably be receiving 'positive bias'

But also Ric, I would suggest that in answer to your comment:

"...........but threads like this (and the previous "agenda" ones) just get clogged up with petty gripes about fairly trivial stuff, and it cheapens the argument."

This is, IMO, made worse by the very high volumes of individual poster(s) refuting that there is any bias (some legitimate grievances) at all - this only fuels the need of those that think that there is bias to bring forward examples - therefore relatively trivial ones come forward - it becomes self-perpetuating.

To use your example - why can they not just 'rise above it'?? why do they have to 'crusade' to deny the space for other fans with legitimate views to discuss it.

This is a forum - we should be allowed to discuss a topic close to the heart of many fans - and I really think that if you ran a poll you would find that there are quite a lot. If there was more than 25% that felt that there was institutional bias then does that not in and of itself evidence that there is merit in discussing the topic?

 

[oakiecokie]

I never implied it was Brennan mate... just asked if the other blue remembered it in my reply to the muen being a rag paper.
I know it wasn't SB but was still sanctioned by the muen wasn't it.

Yes it was sanctioned but if I remember correctly this came from some half brain student who was on "night duty" at the MEN and thought it would be a good idea.Once SB got wind of it,he rightly went ape shit and came on here to discuss the lunacy of someone who didn`t understand how long SB had worked to get a decent relationship with BM and City readers of their paper.
I don`t always agree with whats written but I do defend SB when I think it warrants to do so and I firmly believe that he does a great job with articles.
People complain about him not getting exclusives on City,but those days are long gone,seeing that we prefer to let all and sundry know by our own website.

 

[The blue phantom]

Not all of course - just a fucking large number.

I tell you what would be interesting - and that is if the mods were to attach a pool to this thread, simple question.

"Do you think that there is a level of anti-CITY bias in the coverage of premier league football by the media?"

It would be interesting to see the result and if, as I suspect, there is a fair percentage that considers that to be the case then perhaps some 'fervent' posters could 'allow' those of that view to discuss it amongst themselves.

This forum represents less than 1% of match going blues. Im fairly sure if they read some of utter fuckin shite written on here they'd think they had stumbled on a David Icke forum.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Anyone read the online match report by the L.A. Times ?

Real Madrid 'America's club' blah blah, record crowd, all Madrid, huge cheers warming up, Cty jeered when warming up, Fatty Muldoon from Sadburg says how wonderful it is to see them, great to see 2 european sides pay.

Oh er, & Madrid lost 4-1 by the way.

 

[franksinatra]

1st Polite question - are you going to keep this crusade up all season???

2nd Polite question - why do you do it - what do you get out of it?

I have just turned SSN on for the 1400 show expecting to see them leading on CITY's win over RM - at 14.17 the only CITY related thing has been the cost of Walker and the unavailability of Mendy. Fuck - they played the clip of Pep mentioning Mendy's unavailability during a post-match interview without even saying something like:

"..........Pep, speaking after City's victory against Real Madrid last night............."

It is like last night did not happen.

I used the time to catch up on this thread - and I would politely suggest that you do need to ask yourself just why you are on, what seems to be, a crusade.

We get it - in your mind there is no bias - but can you not just give it a rest, or at least reduce the volume, and let some of those that are convinced that there is bias have a some space to discuss the topic amongst ourselves.

I think that you have posted 17 times in the last few pages FFS.

Great - have your view - but why do you feel the need to force it down the throats of those of us that do not share it? If we can all fully accept that it is your right to have your view - why can you not tolerate others having theirs?

I know it is a forum and the idea is to exchange views / banter about topics, but IMHO your approach goes way beyond that - clearly evidence, IMO, by the number of your posts in recent pages - this is why I describe it as a crusade.

Edit to say that having kept SSN on I now see some coverage, but:

It was in the 'Premier League' update section. This section was of course presented in order of priority, which was:

• such a noteworthy topic as James Milner carrying an injury which lasted 2mins
• (UNDERSTANDABLY) it was placed behind the dramatic topic of the what possible reasons could PEG have for not starting the scum's new signing alongside Bailly - another 2 mins on this
• 3rd item up was PEG's criticisms of some of the spending in the transfer market - backed up by an interview with the independent thinking guru Mike Phelan - only worth 1 min this but at the same time SSN were advertising their 'Man Utd - Barca Talking points' online coverage
• Then at last let's turn to CITY - a clip that showed the goals and a brief clip of Pep and Stones. The clip was at 1438 and lasted 3 mins.

Now I know that you are a fair-minded chap - so does that sound about equitable to the same level of scum wankfesting that has been going on recently?

To answer the first polite question:

It is not really a campaign because I never start the threads on this subject only respond. There are very similar types of thread,on the forum, such as Media Thread, Gary Neville, Rob Beasley all of a similar vein and would suggest the campaign is not being directed by myself on a 'there is not an agenda slant' but more by other people forcibly making accusations, to support their agenda narrative. I doubt I will carry it on all season as I have moved away from the topic over the past 9 months but commented today as after a great victory it seemed more people were intent on focusing on at best minor slights at worst spreading a false narrative that our victory was being ignored by outlets such as the Mail/ BBC etc.

To answer the second polite question:

I enjoy commenting on a forum and discussing the topic.

Also can you explain to me how excatly I have not tolerated other people having a view but they have accepted mine. Surely I have argued my point and similarly they have argue their view. It seems because you do not agree with my opinion therefore I am not tolerating other peoples views. I think that shows your lack of tolearnce not mine.

Thank you for counting my posts but if you were truthful in your post you would have acknowledged a number of those were very much tongue in cheek about such topics as my easy going nature on the road and joking email about mumsnet and the agenda etc. The rest were mostly responses to other people.

I have been privvy to SSN today but I enjoy and watch the SKY advert every evening when the cameras pan away from the Etihad as Martin Tyler screams Aguerooo!! If they genuinely have some campaign to suppress positive City news its a starnge way of going about it featuring that match every couple of hours.