Media Thread - 2021/22

[donkinho]

Thanks for the reply Prestwich - much appreciated. Think I’ve seen you write somewhere about them targeting yourself too ?? I’ve never communicated with these people so have no first hand experience of them. The Rob Harris question to Guardiola after the cup final sticks with me though as arguably the lowest piece of so called journalism I’ve heard

 

[Bill]

Pep spotted the BBC Simon Stone's angle immediately and stopped him in his tracks.

All City fans will be focused on the game at 12.30 but there's a propaganda war going on 24/7. The first thing we have to do is to be conscious of this. When we accept that the corporate media are consistently taking a certain view, then our activity should flow from that.

agreed , so fucking fight back City .

 

[bluemoon32]

Are two of the best sides in the country playing in a couple of hours ?
Just wondering if it's been called off as fuck all on the BBC

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Every newspaper has a commercial reason to bash City. Some have ideological reasons as well.

The Guardian's position on City and our owner is a product of their 'ideology'. They are the voice of what we now call "the woke"; those who believe themselves to be tolerant of all faiths, sexualities, creeds and colours. The climate warriors and those seeking to remove traces of our colonial past. (I'm not criticising or mocking those people by the way.)

But here's where their problem is. In being impeccably tolerant, they have become intolerant of those who don't share those views. They celebrate diversity but simultaneously have a great aversion to elements of that diversity that conflict with their liberal, western, christian views. They will celebrate Islamic culture, for example, but reject elements of that culture that they celebrate that they don't like. LGBT rights is one good example. It's a part of a conservative religion but that doesn't count in the Guardian's eyes. Islam should be what the Guardian thinks it should be, not what it is.

You'll see many Guardian readers champion Hamas over Israel, yet Hamas is a determinedly illiberal organisation that rejects virtually everything the Guardian holds dear whereas Israel, for all its many faults, is the sort of liberal, inclusive (unless you're a Palestinian of course) democracy it champions.

It fails to recognise, despite the many failings of our own democracy, that sometimes autocracy, properly managed, has its benefits, particularly when it comes to avoiding major political instability.

It's for all these reasons that it ideologically hates our owner and his country. In being impeccably liberal, it's implicitly (and often explicitly) illiberal.

 

[deano ou812]

All they can write now is fake news and all regurgitated rubbish like state owned,human rights etc,the net is closing in on some of these racists..

 

[Bonzo Nododo]

Good but enemy reconnaissance is required so that others take your stance. In another walk of life it would be called a picket.

Know thine enemy is an old military maxim but our enemy is more than just the Guardian. Plenty of gatherers on here collecting pieces of intelligence for the agenda jigsaw.

 

[blueinsa]

The Guardian's position on City and our owner is a product of their 'ideology'. They are the voice of what we now call "the woke"; those who believe themselves to be tolerant of all faiths, sexualities, creeds and colours. The climate warriors and those seeking to remove traces of our colonial past. (I'm not criticising or mocking those people by the way.)

But here's where their problem is. In being impeccably tolerant, they have become intolerant of those who don't share those views. They celebrate diversity but simultaneously have a great aversion to elements of that diversity that conflict with their liberal, western, christian views. They will celebrate Islamic culture, for example, but reject elements of that culture that they celebrate that they don't like. LGBT rights is one good example. It's a part of a conservative religion but that doesn't count in the Guardian's eyes. Islam should be what the Guardian thinks it should be, not what it is.

You'll see many Guardian readers champion Hamas over Israel, yet Hamas is a determinedly illiberal organisation that rejects virtually everything the Guardian holds dear whereas Israel, for all its many faults, is the sort of liberal, inclusive (unless you're a Palestinian of course) democracy it champions.

It fails to recognise, despite the many failings of our own democracy, that sometimes autocracy, properly managed, has its benefits, particularly when it comes to avoiding major political instability.

It's for all these reasons that it ideologically hates our owner and his country. In being impeccably liberal, it's implicitly (and often explicitly) illiberal.

A superb post mate.

 

[manimanc]

I honestly think deloony and nostrils Harris and loopy lieu all reside in a residence like one flew over the cuckoo's nest, all sat round a table with that vacant stare, notepads open with scribblings of I hate city and kill pep and oil bastards, all whilst Blue Moon plays out softly over the speakers on the wall.
Deloony has shit himself in his Utd onesie, nostrils Harris is sat in his own piss in a Chelsea onesie and lieu has thrown up his alphabeti spaghetti all down his Liverpool onesie.

Cunts.

 

[Mid Wales blue]

If only we’d listened to Oliver Holt and bought Charlie Adam instead of Sergio Aguero they might have had a point.

And we would have had a lot less points!

 

[yerwot?]

The guardian is the least bad of the msm, and also the smallest influence due to the paucity of it's circulation and on-line presence. The bbc lives under the microscope of a hostile government, a ruthless and malign enemy in murdoch, the mill-stone of the saville scandal, the ridiculous contracts paid to c-list presenters, and has gone from world-respected to shambles. London-centric, poor over-sight and far from impartial. Why they have declared open-season on City is open to speculation, probably several factors in play. That must stem from the top. Biased pundits, but who chose them is key, and why.
Barney Ronay finds flowery prose to state the bleedin' obvious, most of his input could fit into a couple of paragraphs, if he wasn't contracted to a minimum word article. Light-weight comments rather than reporting, innuendo rather than facts, probably a ghost-writer for a politician in his spare six and a half days off....