Wilful ignorance mate, it's quite clear that the entire media will be biased towards generating revenue, which won't come from the relatively small base of people who want city to do well and get on with thingsWhen the police get a "result" ie a conviction they often don't care if the "guilty" person is the correct one. Journalists are similar. If they can write a story which will be read and also please the editors, they will write it. A hint of truth is quite enough.
Generally the journalists will have a bias, but it is the editors who set out the rules and the owners who have the agenda. They naturally employ people who will not disagree with the agenda.
I find it difficult to understand why people do not know this is how the media works.
Jonathan Wilson is a Sunderland fan and normally one of the better journalists. But I met him at an event a couple of years ago and we got talking about Pellegrini.
He'd been giving MP a load of shit because he gave nothing away to journalists. My response was on the lines of maybe he does that because he knows anything substantive that he does say will be twisted. I put it to Wilson that why should he show you any respect when he gets none back. Wilson responded that he got no respect because he showed none to journalists. It got a bit heated in the end but there was an element of entitlement from him that managers should be open with him and his colleagues and that MP's attitude was disrespectful.
Wilful ignorance mate, it's quite clear that the entire media will be biased towards generating revenue, which won't come from the relatively small base of people who want city to do well and get on with things
Wilful ignorance mate, it's quite clear that the entire media will be biased towards generating revenue, which won't come from the relatively small base of people who want city to do well and get on with things
I assume they use the amount of clicks/"reach" to prove they need the funding from the budget or some such. It's all for money, just in different forms.And the reason why the "Free" Press is now dead.
All that matters to media outlets is revenue. As a result media reporting of smaller football clubs or even bigger clubs undergoing hard times has virtually dried up. Not just football - reporting on real issues is now much reduced - the reporting on celebrity culture is the big cash generator - slowly turning our society into a nation of morons.
That doesn't excuse the BBC though who behave in exactly the same way. (That said they get revenue from limited advertising when the site is viewed from abroad so perhaps the same "rules" do apply.)
I assume they use the amount of clicks/"reach" to prove they need the funding from the budget or some such. It's all for money, just in different forms.
United's true fan base is probably around 100th (at tops) of the ludicrous 659m number claimed - therefore the claim about revenues / click bait for positive stories about them doesn't make sense to me. Negative stories about city will generate a lot more hits than positive ones - but negative stories about united could be the biggest earners of them all due to the number of football fans that hate them.
Protecting market share would be harder with constant media negativity, or positivity towards rivals, especially when united are so dire on the pitch - therefore it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the likes of the trinity mirror group get regular presents via the Cayman Islands to bring their stories in-line.
Is this a recent tweet?"Paranoia is when you think something is happening which is not! Working in the media over the last 3 years this is clearly happening #MCFC"
This is Trevor Sinclair's tweet in response to a journo including City in a poll of clubs with most paranoid fans. It speaks volumes.