Media Thread 2017/18

[warringtonblue]

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you!

 

[Neville Kneville]

Not sure how close to the actual article your interpretation is but it reads like a united scouting report.

The general football media these days is basically united advertising; given the extent, i'm pretty sure they must be funding a lot of it too

My quote is just a potted version of each numbered point he makes, apart from he does half a page on each point.

Baeically the only positive thing we 'learned' about City, was that we get the ball forward quicker.

 

[franksinatra]

First off they arent yes and no answers

But you are agreeing that the media are biased as they have to take into account commercial interests therefore why do you find it hard to accept that some City fans are annoyed when they highlight examples of that bias. I like you understand the reasons for it see my previous posts so why do you try and argue that the media are not being biased.

If you think the BBC is not biased then you are deluding yourself the examples have been numerous.

To quote Einstein the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results" and arguing with some on here makes me feel like that

I ignored your smug comment and gave you the benefit of the doubt. You do not have the right to determine or condition how I answer a question.

Featuring more or less articles on a club is not bias. If those articles are slanted to favour one club or promote a club I would agree that is bias.

I see positive and negative articles about City. Similar I see the same about United. Is there more articles about United I would say there is.

 

[bluemoonmatt]

Just my opinion - but a poor post that avoiding discussion on what you find difficult.

We who think they is bias have the same rights on here as those who do not.

Could be 5 pints on my behalf though.

Given the sense that makes Im guessing your local offers decent premium strength liquor.

In all seriousness, I'm just trying to say his view whether you agree or not is no less valid than yours. To a degree I accept frank sometimes defends the indefensible, equally many on here take umbrage over the most pathetic of slights, my personal POV is somewhere inbetween, either way yours and his views have equal right to be aired and no one is forcing anyone to change their opinion.

 

[bluealf]

So you have thrown an accusation at someone about having a previous username but you do not know what it was, who said it or even if it is true. Is that correct?

For the record I do not work for the press and never have, never changed username, never quit the board and I am happy for the mods to verify or refute this.

Next time you make such a claim I suggest you check its accuracy.

Oh boo hoo, I didn't throw an accusation your way, in all reality I wasn't even talking to you, was just trying to save the board another 10 pages of your argumentative tripe.

Like I said it was a long time back, the "suggestion" was made long ago, I didn't post for three years and just thought you were that guy, get over it ffs

 

[franksinatra]

Given the sense that makes Im guessing your local offers decent premium strength liquor.

In all seriousness, I'm just trying to say his view whether you agree or not is no less valid than yours. To a degree I accept frank sometimes defends the indefensible, equally many on here take umbrage over the most pathetic of slights, my personal POV is somewhere inbetween, either way yours and his views have equal right to be aired and no one is forcing anyone to change their opinion.

That is all fair enough bluemoonmatt and I have absolutely no issue with you saying I defend the indefensible.

The forum is all about opinions and although naturally I think I am correct (or I would not argue the point) I do see things like circling red seats, the BBC calling Pete the badge a Bertie etc which Infuriates me as much as anybody and understandably lends weight to peoples argument about the media being against us.

You say your somewhere inbetween and there is a good chance that is probably where the truth lies.

To mcfc1632 keep posting on the forum if you believe there is bias, as that is your right. However it is a forum so do not be offended if you get challenged on your view as I have tonight on mine. Were all blues just and with so many posters there will always be people who view things differently.

 

[franksinatra]

Oh boo hoo, I didn't throw an accusation your way, in all reality I wasn't even talking to you, was just trying to save the board another 10 pages of your argumentative tripe.

Like I said it was a long time back, the "suggestion" was made long ago, I didn't post for three years and just thought you were that guy, get over it ffs

Oh its turned into a suggestion now. No you stated a lie about me on the forum to someone else and when challenged could not back it up.

Im over it as you cannot support your point and I have been proven right.

Thanks for your efforts to rescue the board.

 

[bluealf]

Oh its turned into a suggestion now. No you stated a lie about me on the forum to someone else and when challenged could not back it up.

Im over it as you cannot support your point and I have been proven right.

Thanks for your efforts to rescue the board.

The suggestion wasn't by me it was from the past, I did say you were another poster, I never denied thinking you were somebody else, fuck me shoot me dead.

Being proven right is all you care about, that is blatantly obvious in this thread and the million others were you are out defending the honour of the gutter press.

no probs when I remember the original name I will let you know.

 

[franksinatra]

The suggestion wasn't by me it was from the past, I did say you were another poster, I never denied thinking you were somebody else, fuck me shoot me dead.

Being proven right is all you care about, that is blatantly obvious in this thread and the million others were you are out defending the honour of the gutter press.

no probs when I remember the original name I will let you know.

I do when people lie, become personal and make claims which are inaccurate.

Its a shame people like you exist on this forum. All morning it was quite lighthearted and good natured. I was getting a bit of stick but I had no issue with it. Sadly it changes when people like you enter the thread and you start commentating about people personally, to others, instead of debating the subject.

Anyway I will not comment again as its detracting from the thread.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I'm not overly arsed that the Rag's get more stories on the BBC Sport website than we do. They generate more click worldwide and so more advertising revenue; basic economics really. However, what really pissed me off about today was that someone at the BBC chose to tag (hide?) the Rag story onto the bottom of our 4-1 drubbing of Real, when it clearly warranted its own headline.

Be honest; how many Blues would choose to click on a Rag story on the BBC, or anywhere for that matter (unless it was reporting their demise)? I certainly wouldn't, and I bet not many Rags would click on a City story either. The only reason I can see for someone at the BBC tag that on to the end of our match report (and remember, BBC sport (including web content) is run from Media City) is as a deliberate act to piss off City fans without actually appearing to be deliberately derogatory (Bertie anyone?).

Now it could be argued that their is a clear BBC agenda, but what is more likely is that it is being done a handful of spiteful cockroaches at Media City who get off on it; quite possibly one of the same spiteful cockroaches who made the Pete the Badge comment that was Royally swept under the carpet. The BBC are doing themselves no favours by allowing it to happen, and it is in danger of boiling over.