Media Thread 2017/18

[Willie Wontie]

Th

What because his fuckin opinion differs from yours.

Thank you

 

[franksinatra]

And you do not realise the people who own mcfc want to compete with the very people who own present day media outlets.

May I suggest a Social science degree course .

Or some wider reading.

Thanks for the advice but if the strength of my argument, after studying a degree and undertaking wider reading, was there is bias against City because there is bias in other aspects of the media I would consider it a complete waste of time.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Were discussing football bias now against one particular football club. You do not need to tell me the Mail may support for example the conservatives at an election because of its readerships/donors etc. Just because there is other bias does not prove there is bias against us. Its a simple concept.

I have never ssid there is no bias in the media so stop misquoting and try and follow the thread.

Everything the Mail publishes is done so with clickbait in mind. Every story has a comments section, and every story is deliberately couched in the rhetoric of its core readership. Every issue is filled with tales of rapes committed by refugees (and if they can't find any in the UK, they trawl Sweden and Germany), of 'remoaners' betraying the will of the people, of how the incidence of cancer is allegedly higher amongst single mums, of fat cat Union bosses holding the country to ransom, and so on and so on and so on. The comments sections then are, unsurprisingly, a foam fest of splenetic ignorance.

What I don't understand with your holocaust denying approach Frank, is why, if you can accept that evidence of this modus operandii exists on the front pages, you seem incapable of accepting that the paper might seek to indulge itself in the same practices on the back pages. Papers like the Mail thrive on targeting institutions or people they perceive as being unpopular, in order to generate maximum reaction from the largest readership groups. On the front pages it panders to the Tories. On the back pages it habitually looks for a common enemy of the rags, the dippers and the Arse. I'll leave you to work out the rest. Doesn't mean that every story about City is written in snide terms, but it certainly means that an adverse proportion of them are compared to those about other clubs......in my opinion of course

 

[dronefromsector7G]

Well done for using the wankest idiom in the English language.

You're an idiom

 

[franksinatra]

Everything the Mail publishes is done so with clickbait in mind. Every story has a comments section, and every story is deliberately couched in the rhetoric of its core readership. Every issue is filled with tales of rapes committed by refugees (and if they can't find any in the UK, they trawl Sweden and Germany), of 'remoaners' betraying the will of the people, of how the incidence of cancer is allegedly higher amongst single mums, of fat cat Union bosses holding the country to ransom, and so on and so on and so on. The comments sections then are, unsurprisingly, a foam fest of splenetic ignorance.

What I don't understand with your holocaust denying approach Frank, is why, if you can accept that evidence of this modus operandii exists on the front pages, you seem incapable of accepting that the paper might seek to indulge itself in the same practices on the back pages. Papers like the Mail thrive on targeting institutions or people they perceive as being unpopular, in order to generate maximum reaction from the largest readership groups. On the front pages it panders to the Tories. On the back pages it habitually looks for a common enemy of the rags, the dippers and the Arse. I'll leave you to work out the rest. Doesn't mean that every story about City is written in snide terms, but it certainly means that an adverse proportion of them are compared to those about other clubs......in my opinion of course

Evening Exeter.

Its a fair comment exeter but like you say we make opinions based upon what we read.

If, for example, we take the mail I have read negative City stuff and then seen Martin Samuel jump to our defence with regards FFP.

If its Sky I see negative stuff but then hear Mike Wedderburn mocking the reds and watch that glorious advert featuring the Aguero moment and reminding the world of that defining moment in our history 5 years on.

So although I would not deny negative reporting about us I just believe its the view of that particular journalist(s) rather than an orchestrated campaign by Sky/Mail/BBC etc to undermine us.

As for adverse proportions that is very difficult to say. Naturally we focus on our club and as we are well educated in the subject matter its possible we note inaccuracies/untruths much more than when we read about other clubs which supports the view of bias. But without knowing so much about other clubs I could not say with any certainty there are not similar inaccuracies about other clubs.

People think I defend the papers but nothing could be further from the truth. I think the standards of the tabloids are appalling and they will stoop to any levels with regards a story. I also find it bizarre that people listen to talksport, for example, and then come on here and moan about the content. Why are City fans giving them the time of the day in the first place?

Articles about Raheem Sterling for example I found disgusting and within the forum it was widely linked to his transfer from Liverpool but then you read the article in the Sun about Ross Barkley or the continual hounding of Gazza and although deplorable I am not convinced its unique to us but gutter publishing across the board.

Another example, and I appreciate I am probably in the minority on here but I found the treatment of Louis Van Gaal pretty distasteful also when you consider his reputation in the game and arguably David Moyes before him.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Another example, and I appreciate I am probably in the minority on here but I found the treatment of Louis Van Gaal pretty distasteful also when you consider his reputation in the game and arguably David Moyes before him.

The reporting on Moyes before Christmas that season was obsequious to the point of utter parody: "cut from the same cloth". It was only when the club staring briefing against Moyes did the tone of the media change towards him; and fuck me, didn't it change quickly?

 

[johnnytapia]

The internet has a lot to answer for.

 

[Deleted member 13905]

this seems fairly reasonable...

Pep Guardiola embroiled in huge row with Manchester City chiefs over China plans

PEP GUARDIOLA is on a collision course with Etihad bosses over the club’s plans to travel to China next summer.
By Peter Edwards
PUBLISHED: 22:30, Sun, Jul 30, 2017

Pep Guardiola has spent over £200m this summer already

Guardiola has been told he will be taking his Manchester City squad to the Far East for their pre-season tour – but he does not like China and would prefer to return to America instead.
He was left unhappy 12 months ago when City endured a miserable tour of China that reached a new low when their game with Manchester United in Beijing was called off due to problems with the pitch.
City blamed United for not doing enough to improve the playing surface and Guardiola was also unhappy with the facilities in general and humid conditions.

 

[hutton who blue]

Agreed.

Me too. We've been beating the rags on the pitch quite regularly of late, no blue would insinuate we haven't. He, I'm assuming he's male, gave himself away there.

 

[Tarzan41]

Everything the Mail publishes is done so with clickbait in mind. Every story has a comments section, and every story is deliberately couched in the rhetoric of its core readership. Every issue is filled with tales of rapes committed by refugees (and if they can't find any in the UK, they trawl Sweden and Germany), of 'remoaners' betraying the will of the people, of how the incidence of cancer is allegedly higher amongst single mums, of fat cat Union bosses holding the country to ransom, and so on and so on and so on. The comments sections then are, unsurprisingly, a foam fest of splenetic ignorance.

What I don't understand with your holocaust denying approach Frank, is why, if you can accept that evidence of this modus operandii exists on the front pages, you seem incapable of accepting that the paper might seek to indulge itself in the same practices on the back pages. Papers like the Mail thrive on targeting institutions or people they perceive as being unpopular, in order to generate maximum reaction from the largest readership groups. On the front pages it panders to the Tories. On the back pages it habitually looks for a common enemy of the rags, the dippers and the Arse. I'll leave you to work out the rest. Doesn't mean that every story about City is written in snide terms, but it certainly means that an adverse proportion of them are compared to those about other clubs......in my opinion of course

The Mail using the online version to publish controversial and potentially libellous stories that don't appear in the paper. Simply because the servers are overseas and impossible to sue.