Media Thread - 2021/22

[The_Maverick]

I way of looking at it.

However whenever the redshirts win they get a story on the bbc news main site.

BBC doesn't have advertising so shouldn't be concerned about clicks.

Yep they do but no idea why they think I can afford one of these…

Edit: Just realized they have me mixed up with @Barcon

 

[Katsunari Takayama]

Mooney, voice of the fans. I think not!

I like his show in fairness, he’s obviously a proper blue.

 

[The perfect fumble]

He’s not claiming to, tbf.

You and I disagree on this I know, but when he spoke to the Anfield Wrap a few months back he came very close.

 

[dickie davies]

You and I disagree on this I know, but when he spoke to the Anfield Wrap a few months back he came very close.

That's what I was referring to when I said "at least one other occasion "

 

[Barcon]

Yep they do but no idea why they think I can afford one of these…

Edit: Just realized they have me mixed up with @Barcon

22 grand for that? Pftt.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

This is absolutely not what I've said. The TL;DR of that thread was that the vast majority of coverage of City is fair, but there are some fans in a race to be offended that will find fault where there is very little to complain about. That's quite a big difference between (as someone on Twitter put it) "apparently we're all paranoid".

But, of course, the nuance in the whole thing can't be summed up in such a short sentence and one of the reasons why I'm not getting into specific articles or items is because it becomes a long list of "go on - defend this one!" when that's not what I'm saying in the slightest. There *are* things that City fans can rightly feel upset about in the way the club is covered, but a lot of what gets posted in this thread or most of what I see complained about on Twitter is perfectly fine - and the more that gets shovelled in together, the more diluted the actual grievances get.

Again, in that thread, I said I understood why people would question why The Athletic piece by Adam Crafton was done. This is purely conjecture, but I suspect it's a precursor to a something on Newcastle later down the line, but I've no idea what Adam is working on. Equally, City's business deals are the subject of interest in the wake of the CAS verdict and the recent news around 3Key. People are interested, rightly or wrongly - and here is a piece that says all of the sponsorships City have entered into are legit. Next time someone tells you about all of that dodgy money being pumped into City through the back door, you can literally point them to an investigation by a national publication that shows it's all above board.

But that's besides the point - I said I didn't want to get into specifics of pieces and I'm not here to debate that piece.

The main reason I wanted to reply here is what's often put to me: "pursuing a career in the media". I've seen this before ("he just wants to be a sportswriter" etc etc). It might surprise you, but I've actually got what I consider to be the perfect job right now. I said in the thread on Twitter who I work for so that I could be clear, but let me give this even more personal data (that the whole discussion probably doesn't deserve) so that I can be even clearer and, even if you don't agree with me, you can see that I'm speaking from what limited experience I have rather than acting as a stooge or trying to worm my way to the top (of where, I'm not really sure).

I'm freelance. I work in news production for BBC 5 Live across various programmes. That generally means pitching news stories and potential guests to speak to, and then contacting those guests to invite them on air. It's interviewing those guests to find out more about the story or their experience and taking a brief of what they'll say or what they think so we know what they can talk about. It's writing scripts for the presenters to read and generally making the programme ready for broadcast. This is not anything to do with the station's sport output, in fact I've never worked on a single sport programme in my six years at 5 Live.

I work for The Athletic, producing their City podcast with Sam Lee. I have no insight into what anybody at The Athletic is writing about or working on - I literally speak to Sam over the weekend and between us we decide what would be an interesting topic for the show. Then I go away and write some scripts and some questions I can ask him, while he brings the info and the stories. Then we record, I edit it and I upload it.

I make Blue Moon Podcast, which, while not a roaring success, it doesn't cost me money to make anymore, so I can be glad about that.

I've been working in various media jobs now for nearly 15 years and I've hit a point where I've never been happier. I can choose (ish) when I work and I get to talk about City with nobody telling me what I can and can't say. I have no editorial pressures and no need to have contacts at City to find stories and information out (I have none). I'm also making radio, which is far more fun than writing daily under pressure because the desk needs a story covering or whatever.

That's my motivation - so you can believe all you want that I say what I say about coverage of City being an attempt to cosy up to people, but it's really not the case. Would you believe, I actually have writers, pundits and journalists that I like and dislike, too.

Ultimately, though, I just don't understand what people mean by "The Media" anymore. If I'm being honest, I'd love to be able to make a living talking about only City on podcasts - would that still make me part of "The Media" as a self-employed podcaster? What is it? We talk about newspapers, websites, TV news bulletins, rolling news, Sky Sports, social media platforms. All of this is "The Media" - but I see a big difference between finding unfair what Miguel Delaney has written compared to what some blogger for Football Fancast has tweeted or what some YouTuber has made a video about.

(Importantly, I'm not criticising anyone's right to feel annoyed by anything, but I do think the response needs to be proportionate.)

What I was saying in that Twitter thread was that most of what is written about City by journalists IS balanced, but that doesn't mean you have to like it. Balanced isn't about portraying anybody in a positive or negative light - something can be balanced and a negative story. Balance is all about letting all sides have their say.

From my brief stint as a blogger, I know that City do take action where they think things are unfair. I've had a call from the press office in the past over an opinion piece I wrote on ticket prices, for instance - and I'm hardly one of the "big boys", I was a fan writing what I thought.

There's also a massive difference between opinion pieces and news pieces, but that all gets bundled up into one. Opinions can't be true or false, so when I see tweets about Journalist X lying about City and then I see it's them giving an opinion that City fans would disagree with, I find it hard to be upset.

Does this mean I think everybody that's ever written about City is perfect? No. Does this mean that I think nobody makes mistakes? No. Does this mean that I don't get pissed off with how the club is written about? No. Does this mean that I wish Jamie Carragher would commentate on every City game or that the cost of City's line-up is fair game in ever pre-match build-up? No.

It just means that there is far more nuance than anybody gives any time to - but in trying to talk about that nuance, I'm called all sorts of names under the sun and have what I'm saying misrepresented, while my motives are questioned. People might not agree with me, people might think I'm a dick, fine - but Christ at least let it be for the things I think.

I apologise that you've had this essay in response to your post and I promise I'm not having a go at you. I just thought it'd be worth explaining my position rather than having it talked about without my input.



This is a strawman - nobody is claiming that I am, least of all me. Nobody could possibly be the voice of any fanbase because, again, everything is far too nuanced.



Maybe this is for the best. After all, I'm just as much small fry as that Football Fancast blogger or YouTuber I created up there and, as much as I work for two media organisations, I'm hardly "in the media", whatever that means. If you don't like me, you can avoid my stuff pretty easily - I know what listener figures my podcasts get.

To be fair.. this is a very fair and well thought out response to my post.
I still don’t agree with the basic premise of your twitter thread, but I have a new found understanding of your point of view.
Sounds like you have the career you have always wanted and I’m not about to give you a hard time about that. I wish you every success.

 

[franksinatra]

This is absolutely not what I've said. The TL;DR of that thread was that the vast majority of coverage of City is fair, but there are some fans in a race to be offended that will find fault where there is very little to complain about. That's quite a big difference between (as someone on Twitter put it) "apparently we're all paranoid".

But, of course, the nuance in the whole thing can't be summed up in such a short sentence and one of the reasons why I'm not getting into specific articles or items is because it becomes a long list of "go on - defend this one!" when that's not what I'm saying in the slightest. There *are* things that City fans can rightly feel upset about in the way the club is covered, but a lot of what gets posted in this thread or most of what I see complained about on Twitter is perfectly fine - and the more that gets shovelled in together, the more diluted the actual grievances get.

Again, in that thread, I said I understood why people would question why The Athletic piece by Adam Crafton was done. This is purely conjecture, but I suspect it's a precursor to a something on Newcastle later down the line, but I've no idea what Adam is working on. Equally, City's business deals are the subject of interest in the wake of the CAS verdict and the recent news around 3Key. People are interested, rightly or wrongly - and here is a piece that says all of the sponsorships City have entered into are legit. Next time someone tells you about all of that dodgy money being pumped into City through the back door, you can literally point them to an investigation by a national publication that shows it's all above board.

But that's besides the point - I said I didn't want to get into specifics of pieces and I'm not here to debate that piece.

The main reason I wanted to reply here is what's often put to me: "pursuing a career in the media". I've seen this before ("he just wants to be a sportswriter" etc etc). It might surprise you, but I've actually got what I consider to be the perfect job right now. I said in the thread on Twitter who I work for so that I could be clear, but let me give this even more personal data (that the whole discussion probably doesn't deserve) so that I can be even clearer and, even if you don't agree with me, you can see that I'm speaking from what limited experience I have rather than acting as a stooge or trying to worm my way to the top (of where, I'm not really sure).

I'm freelance. I work in news production for BBC 5 Live across various programmes. That generally means pitching news stories and potential guests to speak to, and then contacting those guests to invite them on air. It's interviewing those guests to find out more about the story or their experience and taking a brief of what they'll say or what they think so we know what they can talk about. It's writing scripts for the presenters to read and generally making the programme ready for broadcast. This is not anything to do with the station's sport output, in fact I've never worked on a single sport programme in my six years at 5 Live.

I work for The Athletic, producing their City podcast with Sam Lee. I have no insight into what anybody at The Athletic is writing about or working on - I literally speak to Sam over the weekend and between us we decide what would be an interesting topic for the show. Then I go away and write some scripts and some questions I can ask him, while he brings the info and the stories. Then we record, I edit it and I upload it.

I make Blue Moon Podcast, which, while not a roaring success, it doesn't cost me money to make anymore, so I can be glad about that.

I've been working in various media jobs now for nearly 15 years and I've hit a point where I've never been happier. I can choose (ish) when I work and I get to talk about City with nobody telling me what I can and can't say. I have no editorial pressures and no need to have contacts at City to find stories and information out (I have none). I'm also making radio, which is far more fun than writing daily under pressure because the desk needs a story covering or whatever.

That's my motivation - so you can believe all you want that I say what I say about coverage of City being an attempt to cosy up to people, but it's really not the case. Would you believe, I actually have writers, pundits and journalists that I like and dislike, too.

Ultimately, though, I just don't understand what people mean by "The Media" anymore. If I'm being honest, I'd love to be able to make a living talking about only City on podcasts - would that still make me part of "The Media" as a self-employed podcaster? What is it? We talk about newspapers, websites, TV news bulletins, rolling news, Sky Sports, social media platforms. All of this is "The Media" - but I see a big difference between finding unfair what Miguel Delaney has written compared to what some blogger for Football Fancast has tweeted or what some YouTuber has made a video about.

(Importantly, I'm not criticising anyone's right to feel annoyed by anything, but I do think the response needs to be proportionate.)

What I was saying in that Twitter thread was that most of what is written about City by journalists IS balanced, but that doesn't mean you have to like it. Balanced isn't about portraying anybody in a positive or negative light - something can be balanced and a negative story. Balance is all about letting all sides have their say.

From my brief stint as a blogger, I know that City do take action where they think things are unfair. I've had a call from the press office in the past over an opinion piece I wrote on ticket prices, for instance - and I'm hardly one of the "big boys", I was a fan writing what I thought.

There's also a massive difference between opinion pieces and news pieces, but that all gets bundled up into one. Opinions can't be true or false, so when I see tweets about Journalist X lying about City and then I see it's them giving an opinion that City fans would disagree with, I find it hard to be upset.

Does this mean I think everybody that's ever written about City is perfect? No. Does this mean that I think nobody makes mistakes? No. Does this mean that I don't get pissed off with how the club is written about? No. Does this mean that I wish Jamie Carragher would commentate on every City game or that the cost of City's line-up is fair game in ever pre-match build-up? No.

It just means that there is far more nuance than anybody gives any time to - but in trying to talk about that nuance, I'm called all sorts of names under the sun and have what I'm saying misrepresented, while my motives are questioned. People might not agree with me, people might think I'm a dick, fine - but Christ at least let it be for the things I think.

I apologise that you've had this essay in response to your post and I promise I'm not having a go at you. I just thought it'd be worth explaining my position rather than having it talked about without my input.



This is a strawman - nobody is claiming that I am, least of all me. Nobody could possibly be the voice of any fanbase because, again, everything is far too nuanced.



Maybe this is for the best. After all, I'm just as much small fry as that Football Fancast blogger or YouTuber I created up there and, as much as I work for two media organisations, I'm hardly "in the media", whatever that means. If you don't like me, you can avoid my stuff pretty easily - I know what listener figures my podcasts get.

Keep up the great work with the podcast. Fantastic listen and helps me get through many a long run.

 

[cookster]

I like his show in fairness, he’s obviously a proper blue.

Short time listener then I got bored. I prefer 93:20.

 

[oakiecokie]

Mooney can fuck off.

Have you ever met him ?

 

[wattle]

This is absolutely not what I've said. The TL;DR of that thread was that the vast majority of coverage of City is fair, but there are some fans in a race to be offended that will find fault where there is very little to complain about. That's quite a big difference between (as someone on Twitter put it) "apparently we're all paranoid".

But, of course, the nuance in the whole thing can't be summed up in such a short sentence and one of the reasons why I'm not getting into specific articles or items is because it becomes a long list of "go on - defend this one!" when that's not what I'm saying in the slightest. There *are* things that City fans can rightly feel upset about in the way the club is covered, but a lot of what gets posted in this thread or most of what I see complained about on Twitter is perfectly fine - and the more that gets shovelled in together, the more diluted the actual grievances get.

Again, in that thread, I said I understood why people would question why The Athletic piece by Adam Crafton was done. This is purely conjecture, but I suspect it's a precursor to a something on Newcastle later down the line, but I've no idea what Adam is working on. Equally, City's business deals are the subject of interest in the wake of the CAS verdict and the recent news around 3Key. People are interested, rightly or wrongly - and here is a piece that says all of the sponsorships City have entered into are legit. Next time someone tells you about all of that dodgy money being pumped into City through the back door, you can literally point them to an investigation by a national publication that shows it's all above board.

But that's besides the point - I said I didn't want to get into specifics of pieces and I'm not here to debate that piece.

The main reason I wanted to reply here is what's often put to me: "pursuing a career in the media". I've seen this before ("he just wants to be a sportswriter" etc etc). It might surprise you, but I've actually got what I consider to be the perfect job right now. I said in the thread on Twitter who I work for so that I could be clear, but let me give this even more personal data (that the whole discussion probably doesn't deserve) so that I can be even clearer and, even if you don't agree with me, you can see that I'm speaking from what limited experience I have rather than acting as a stooge or trying to worm my way to the top (of where, I'm not really sure).

I'm freelance. I work in news production for BBC 5 Live across various programmes. That generally means pitching news stories and potential guests to speak to, and then contacting those guests to invite them on air. It's interviewing those guests to find out more about the story or their experience and taking a brief of what they'll say or what they think so we know what they can talk about. It's writing scripts for the presenters to read and generally making the programme ready for broadcast. This is not anything to do with the station's sport output, in fact I've never worked on a single sport programme in my six years at 5 Live.

I work for The Athletic, producing their City podcast with Sam Lee. I have no insight into what anybody at The Athletic is writing about or working on - I literally speak to Sam over the weekend and between us we decide what would be an interesting topic for the show. Then I go away and write some scripts and some questions I can ask him, while he brings the info and the stories. Then we record, I edit it and I upload it.

I make Blue Moon Podcast, which, while not a roaring success, it doesn't cost me money to make anymore, so I can be glad about that.

I've been working in various media jobs now for nearly 15 years and I've hit a point where I've never been happier. I can choose (ish) when I work and I get to talk about City with nobody telling me what I can and can't say. I have no editorial pressures and no need to have contacts at City to find stories and information out (I have none). I'm also making radio, which is far more fun than writing daily under pressure because the desk needs a story covering or whatever.

That's my motivation - so you can believe all you want that I say what I say about coverage of City being an attempt to cosy up to people, but it's really not the case. Would you believe, I actually have writers, pundits and journalists that I like and dislike, too.

Ultimately, though, I just don't understand what people mean by "The Media" anymore. If I'm being honest, I'd love to be able to make a living talking about only City on podcasts - would that still make me part of "The Media" as a self-employed podcaster? What is it? We talk about newspapers, websites, TV news bulletins, rolling news, Sky Sports, social media platforms. All of this is "The Media" - but I see a big difference between finding unfair what Miguel Delaney has written compared to what some blogger for Football Fancast has tweeted or what some YouTuber has made a video about.

(Importantly, I'm not criticising anyone's right to feel annoyed by anything, but I do think the response needs to be proportionate.)

What I was saying in that Twitter thread was that most of what is written about City by journalists IS balanced, but that doesn't mean you have to like it. Balanced isn't about portraying anybody in a positive or negative light - something can be balanced and a negative story. Balance is all about letting all sides have their say.

From my brief stint as a blogger, I know that City do take action where they think things are unfair. I've had a call from the press office in the past over an opinion piece I wrote on ticket prices, for instance - and I'm hardly one of the "big boys", I was a fan writing what I thought.

There's also a massive difference between opinion pieces and news pieces, but that all gets bundled up into one. Opinions can't be true or false, so when I see tweets about Journalist X lying about City and then I see it's them giving an opinion that City fans would disagree with, I find it hard to be upset.

Does this mean I think everybody that's ever written about City is perfect? No. Does this mean that I think nobody makes mistakes? No. Does this mean that I don't get pissed off with how the club is written about? No. Does this mean that I wish Jamie Carragher would commentate on every City game or that the cost of City's line-up is fair game in ever pre-match build-up? No.

It just means that there is far more nuance than anybody gives any time to - but in trying to talk about that nuance, I'm called all sorts of names under the sun and have what I'm saying misrepresented, while my motives are questioned. People might not agree with me, people might think I'm a dick, fine - but Christ at least let it be for the things I think.

I apologise that you've had this essay in response to your post and I promise I'm not having a go at you. I just thought it'd be worth explaining my position rather than having it talked about without my input.



This is a strawman - nobody is claiming that I am, least of all me. Nobody could possibly be the voice of any fanbase because, again, everything is far too nuanced.



Maybe this is for the best. After all, I'm just as much small fry as that Football Fancast blogger or YouTuber I created up there and, as much as I work for two media organisations, I'm hardly "in the media", whatever that means. If you don't like me, you can avoid my stuff pretty easily - I know what listener figures my podcasts get.

Thank you for posting that. It gives a much more balanced view of things.