Absolutely bang on the money, especially with your last sentence. This is the nub of the matter as far as the UK sports and football media goes. It underpins every post in this thread regarding the media, from the very first one up until today's contributions by Blues who are, quite rightly, irate with the unfair treatment that has been doled out to our club since 2008. The only thing that ever changes is the particular incident involved; whatever it is (from FFP/CAS to a 'morally unpalatable goal award' etc etc) the media response is always to sully our name and whip up the tribal cretins of other clubs, as you put it.
I posted a while ago quoting a line from a song by The Smiths ('Heavy words are so lightly thrown'), referring to the lack of accountability and awareness of the consequences of their actions among media johnnies like the cretins pontificating on City's game last night. From Ferdinand's ravings to Walton with his initial analysis of our first goal, they demonstrated not only their partiality and incompetence but also their complete lack of concern regarding the impact of what they are saying.
These people know the outcomes of what they say but they don't care what falls out from it. If they did care, they would know and research their jobs properly, including knowing the laws of the game. And they would demonstrate their lack of partiality by giving credit to any and every team, whenever it is due. But they don't do that for most clubs that they don't favour; and they certainly don't as far as City is concerned.
Growing up as a kid starved of football on the television in the late 50s/early 60s, it was thrilling to see football, ANY football on the box. Sure, we had tribal loyalties but we enjoyed whatever was on offer, frugal as it was, including supporting other teams in European competitions.
It isn't just looking back through rose-tinted glasses to say that commentaries then were always worth listening to. Wolstenholme, Weeks, Lofthouse, Davies, Moore, Coleman et al were mainly factual, to the point and authoritative in describing the game put before us. When the World Cup came in 1966, television responded with wall-to-wall coverage and innovations such as the 'action replay' and the 'expert panel' (well-respected players who'd become successful managers like Greenwood, Revie and our own dear 'Uncle' Joe Mercer; their analyses of players and tactics had gravitas, teaching us about the game and the only points of contention were such as when 'Uncle' Joe kept on referring to Pele as 'Pee-Lee'..!)
Compare that to the sensationalist ravings we're often presented with by the television providers nowadays. To me, it's almost as though everyone involved with football coverage has to be a fully paid up member of the Church Of The Nine Day Wonder.. 'This will be the greatest game in the history of football; No! the next one coming up will be the greatest game of football ever, featuring the greatest players ever!!; This will be the most talked about incident in football since the last one we can't give a toss to remember the details of! And it's all on (insert your channel of choice here)..!!!' ..and so on and so on..
All the sports and football media cares about is getting clicks and advertising revenue. And hang the consequences.
A consequence for me has been the change from being someone who always supported an English side whenever football was played and who always believed that, for the greater good and interests of the game, a sharing out of the trophy spoils was to be preferred (like when I was growing up, between 1959 when I first went to Maine Road and 1972, 11 different clubs won the title across the 14 seasons while 12 different clubs won the FA Cup).
However, now I couldn't give a stuff for other teams except my own and if City won the next 10 titles on the bounce plus dominated in Europe, I would be most content with that outcome and sod the rest of them, especially our venal media!
