Media Thread 2017/18

[franksinatra]

I wouldn't bother, it has been discussed with him on numerous occasions, he doesn't believe it and that is that, he somehow doesn't get bored with coming onto these types of threads to say it is all in your minds and there is no bias at all, seriously it has been going on since the takeover he has already changed name once for whatever reason.

At the end of the day you will only agitate yourself trying to argue with him.

Who have I changed name from exactly and then we can get the mods to expose you for the liar you are.

 

[Bilboblue]

Is anyone interested in buying a programne from
newcastle away 2012 one has just become available :-)

I'll swap it for a Bournemouth ticket ;o)

 

[franksinatra]

I'll swap it for a Bournemouth ticket ;o)

Ha ha if only..

 

[mcfc1632]

This is getting a bit frustrating so I leave this for now but honestly, the only person I see seeking to 'enforce' a view, well it aint me and it aint frank. If you want the postings to be reflective only of your view then i'd ask ric when the next mod position comes up then you can delete anything you dont agree with

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.

 

[manchester blue]

I had a bit of a run in with stuart brennan over one of his articles once and still dont understand why we have a rag covering city. But to be fair he has stepped up. I think he has at least tried to understand what it is to be a blue and to try and see things from our perspective. He has written some good articles recently and has even been on bm to clarify a few points so i am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. That said i very rarely read the muen these days - its just not relevant any more. You get far better insight from some posters on this forum. Still have absolutely no idea why meun cant find a city fan to cover city, it stinks really but that says more about the muen than it does about brennan.
Paul hince used to piss me off big time with all his 'gods own club' bollocks. I could have done a better job than him. As for peter gardiner what a lagubrious cnut he was - the frank clark of journalism.

Ha, so the "Rag" is doing a better job than the previous two City fans who reported on us? I have no problem with Stuart Brennan. I do a bit with the MEN but Stuart does negate it a lot.

There are genuine reasons to have a go at the media but Stuart Brennan is not one of them.

 

[franksinatra]

And that is exactly the type of smug comment I was talking about. You are ignoring the gist of someones argument by highlighting one thing as though that disproves the genral tenor of the argument and that is what gets people annoyed.

I have 2 simple yes or no questions for you.

Do you think that the media treat each club equally?
Do you think the BBC treat each club fairly?

I think if you read my second post to JRB it covers all his points.

No club is treated the same in the media as commercial interests for coverage play a part. If you think that is bias then every club has bias against it. Do Watford get the same coverage as us?

I think the BBC are pretty fair to be honest. I have seen a few twiiter posts which have not been to my taste but I can hardly say that is representative of the BBC as a whole. What I completely agree with was their treatment of Pete the badge was disgraceful and I was one of many who sent letters voicing my disapproval at their treatment.

 

[bluealf]

Who have I changed name from exactly and then we can get the mods to expose you for the liar you are.

I can't remember it, it was somebody that was supposed to work for the press and he had an identical way with words and argument as yourself, he would defend the fact there was no bias until his last breath left his body, he threw a wobbler and quit and I thought your name was linked to be him on his return so to speak, I am sure somebody will remember it and let you know.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Agree but you can see the irony of people moaning about a biased media but then wanting a City fan to report on us.

The irony of how many people ?. I`d like knowledge and honesty and even handedness, I dont really care who they support.


Your question "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 dont need a Blue reporting on our club, but its better than the litany of half truth, double standard and lies from some dumber fucker who believes every utterance of propaganda that emanates from the United PR department or against our club

 

[chesterguy]

I think if you read my second post to JRB it covers all his points.

No club is treated the same in the media as commercial interests for coverage play a part. If you think that is bias then every club has bias against it. Do Watford get the same coverage as us?

I think the BBC are pretty fair to be honest. I have seen a few twiiter posts which have not been to my taste but I can hardly say that is representative of the BBC as a whole. What I completely agree with was their treatment of Pete the badge was disgraceful and I was one of many who sent letters voicing my disapproval at their treatment.

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

 

[franksinatra]

I can't remember it, it was somebody that was supposed to work for the press and he had an identical way with words and argument as yourself, he would defend the fact there was no bias until his last breath left his body, he threw a wobbler and quit and I thought your name was linked to be him on his return so to speak, I am sure somebody will remember it and let you know.

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.

 

[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.