Media Thread 2017/18

[franksinatra]

So the fuckers watched a video and wrote a piece in the morning then.

All of the above had instant reports on the Classico (Spanish teams that no one really gives a fuck about) and that game was later than ours.

So the fuckers watched a video and wrote a piece in the morning then.

All of the above had instant reports on the Classico (Spanish teams that no one really gives a fuck about) and that game was later than ours.

And so what if they did? Loads of teams do not get match reports on the bbc website like we do are in the guardian. Are they crying its biased?

Are do they realise its just outlets making commercial decisions. Do uou think the press are biased against Everton because we get more coverage?

 

[Bewar3them00n]

I see we are also back on the FFP watchlist for spending £218 million in the transfer window.

 

[franksinatra]

Re the lack of match report for City v Spurs compared to Real V Barca.
It's not like there were:
a) 2 Prem teams who will be vying for the title next season playing.
B) a recently ex Spurs player playing against his old team
C) playing BEFORE the "Classico"
So, the fans were totally right to call it sad bias, even if it meant being called paranoid.

So are you really saying if another club gets a match report uploaded before us its evidence of bias?

 

[daztrueblue91]

See that I would not argue as similarly we receive more media attention than 95 percent of clubs and really why should an independent organisation make commercial decisions based on anything but commercial interests?

You've just highlighted the main particular gripe I have with the media.

An anti-City article is well within their commercial aspects as it appeals to the pro-United sector.

Therefore, we see a range of negative insinuations about our club which don't apply to other clubs.

 

[Xiphos]

Can't complain about the right up in the Telegraph online, very fair

 

[ballbag]

Is there a bias? Put simply; yes. It is evident in the difference of reporting on us and that of other teams. Not the timing of the reports, but the content of them.

Does anyone genuinely believe that the opinions that other club's fans have about us isn't down to the way we are portrayed by a multitude of media institutions? Well, that and a very satisfying amount of jealousy.

All that being said, those who read and believe everything they see about our club (no fans, no history, etc) are thick as fuck and probably only converse in memes.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

This thread is beyond ridiculous Lol

 

[1961_vintage]

Exactly so why do people get upset when we get less coverage/article later than it should be/not on main sports page etc like we have seen this morning and after the madrid game?

Ask them not me.

It's pretty clear though that the primary commercial driver is also sometimes underpinned by a sense of bitter resentment perpetuated by a combination of those who genuinely believe that we are destroying the competitive nature of the national game, together with those whose fantasy creation over which they enjoyed a sense of outright hegemony has been shattered by this Manchester City led paradigm shift that none of them anticipated and which is often reflected in the media narrative.

This narrative, demonstrated even in the seemingly most petty of ways, can be frustrating for some whose only wish is to be treated fairly, impartially and perhaps with a sense of cheer after experiencing many years of relative sporting strife.

 

[franksinatra]

You've just highlighted the main particular gripe I have with the media.

An anti-City article is well within their commercial aspects as it appeals to the pro-United sector.

Therefore, we see a range of negative insinuations about our club which don't apply to other clubs.

I can see the rationale of the argument but not neccessarily agree with its implementation.

By the same token articles critical of Liverpool could be written and do you think United fans would be that heavily engaged to buy papers/read articles because there is an anti-city slant and would that offset the loss of readership of City fans who would choose to read city articles? As a blue I have never bothered to read anything about United and I would of thought United fans would feel the same about us. Personally I am not sure. However its a better basis for an argument on bias than a friendly report was not uploaded by a certain time on a sunday morning.

 

[daztrueblue91]

I can see the rationale of the argument but not neccessarily agree with its implementation.

By the same token articles critical of Liverpool could be written and do you think United fans would be that heavily engaged to buy papers/read articles because there is an anti-city slant. As a blue I have never bothered to read anything about United and I would of thought United fans would feel the sane snout us. Personally I am not sure. However its a better basis for an argument on bias than a friendly report was not uploaded by a certain time on a sunday morning.

United and Liverpool are by far the biggest media target when it comes to a fan base so slagging one of them of is going to have an adverse impact on their hits and ratings. Why risk alienating the Rags or Dippers when you can find a source to appease them both?

Making City public enemy number one is a sure fire way to get appease those fans.

It's no coincidence that our rise led to Liverpool's fall from the CL spots. Rather than looking at their failings and criticising the money they have wasted on shite like Downing and Carroll, it's much easier to place that blame on moneybags City who are ruining football.

The media turned Sterling into a national hate figure because he had the audacity to leave Liverpool for City. Again it reinforces the view that evil City are stealing from the mighty Liverpool.

The sheep who follow those clubs don't want to see failings in there own sides so the media give them an external source to blame and that's us.