Media Thread - 2021/22

[Dirty Harry]

Soooo fuckin good to see the old Billy Shears back, at one point mate, I thought we may have lost you.

 

[blueju]

I don't mind journalists researching and investigating City providing that they look at other football clubs. Almost every Premier League football club is owned by an oligarch and yet Manchester City seem to be the sole focus of their investigations.

No other club has taken everything away from the entitled ones.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

I no longer read any mainstream media if I can help it. I might peruse some articles linked on here now and again but the majority of it is written by individuals who despise the football club I love. If Mr Mooney tweets the vast majority of it is fair and balanced I'm afraid he is either lying or is deluded as to what fair and balanced actually means. The only fair articles I read in mainstream are usually written by Martin Samuel. Some of the inflammatory stuff written by Harris, Delooney and the hateful red uu mob certainly won't pass the fair and balanced sniff test. Either Mr Mooney hasnt read them or chooses to look the other way. There are none so blind as those that will not see.
This week for me has been a total media blackout however I did notice a huge spike in the number of City related YouTube content available, both g media and partisan filth, who'd have thought it?

 

[manimanc]

Can we start booing Chelsea yet for having a Russian owner?

Can I tag him into human rights being violated as his mate has ordered an invasion of another country?

Or can I come across really thick like deloony and nostrils Harris and be wide of the mark?

 

[Bonzo Nododo]

You make some excellent points, as ever. If I might add to your final two paragraphs, the following might apply. I posted these recollections a couple of years ago in response to a thread entitled 'How did the GPC get away with it?' with the 'it' referred to being Ferguson's treatment of the press. Sorry for banging on at length in this response quoted below but I have highlighted the salient sections that resonated with me in relation to your post above. I think you'll get my drift even if you only read those parts!

========================================================================================

How did he get away with it? Maybe the following will give you a clue (and apologies in advance for going on at length)..

In February 2008, long before City were taken over by The Sheikh, I entered into correspondence with a UK football journalist working for one of the Sunday 'quality papers'. This was and remains the only time I've ever done this. I sent an e-mail into the said sports writer, who shall remain anonymous, as I don't think it's fair to quote names in this instance and, this article apart, I've always enjoyed this writer's output and take on football matters. I sent it because I was pretty hacked off by a piece he'd written in advance of the Manchester 'derby' game that month, (in?)famously chosen by the Premier League's computer to take place during the 50th anniversary week of the Munich Air Disaster.

The newspaper article suggested that there may be 'trouble' at the Old Trafford game and that City supporters could not be trusted to behave correctly during the pre-match commemoration of the Air Disaster, let alone the game itself because, as the article pointed out, us City fans were regularly guilty of singing 'Munich' chants and making all sorts of 'Munich' gestures when confronting our arch rivals.

The article did not question the wisdom of the Premier League's decision to schedule the game as it had. In addition, there was no discussion or suggestion of any criticism of United and its historical handling of the Munich disaster aftermath down the decades; rather its focus was on emphasising that 'problems', should they arise, were likely to be down to City supporters and City supporters alone.

I pointed out several things in my e-mail response to the article:

(a) that the suggestion City fans wouldn't behave was based on no evidence
(b) that in fact, I expected City supporters to behave impeccably (as we did) as the Munich Air Disaster was, actually, MANCHESTER's disaster, involving loss of life of City-connected people and people from other walks of life
(c) that I had attended the welcome home celebration for United after losing the 1958 Cup Final barely a few months after the disaster, being taken there by my parents (I was on my Dad's shoulders), aunts and uncles (all Blues) and our neighbours (season ticket holding Reds), all chanting 'We want Matt!' as the team appeared on the Town Hall balcony
(d) that throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s Manchester commemorated the disaster with dignity, especially when it came to the 'Evening News' edition with its 'In Memoriam' notices on 6 February each year, which diminished each year with the passing of time. I can remember kids being chided by adults for speaking negatively about the disaster or making jokes about it
(e) that despite this, still there was a growing dissatisfaction about United's response to the disaster and especially the way players and their families were treated by the club, pushing them out of club houses, refusing to compensate them properly and so on (I gave the example of Albert Scanlon, who my mother would babysit for in Hulme when she was a young girl/woman and who I'd met on a couple of occasions when my parents would go to Sinclair's Oyster Bar in the 70s of a Saturday night, when Albert always spent time chatting with my Mum. He was very upset about his treatment)
(f) that United's callous behaviour post-disaster (apart from the clock at the ground) was compounded by its change of direction in the 90s onward, when suddenly 'Munich' seemed to become a marketing tool for the club post-Stock Market flotation.. yet still no proper compensation for its servants after the disaster..
(g) that the 40th anniversary commemoration in 1998 had put the tin lid on things for those of us who had been around when the crash happened, involving as it did the disgraceful payments to Eric Cantona and his entourage and, yet again, the fans being asked to stump up money for the compensation (finally, 40 years on) to any surviving players
(h) that overall, I believed that United had behaved dreadfully throughout the years since Munich; that, as above, originally what was MANCHESTER's disaster had become hijacked over time as part of the marketing legend that was underpinning the club; and that I'd love to know why our press never commented on any of the things I was pointing out to this particular journalist, never mind all of the problems that this club and a couple of others at the top of the English football hierarchy were causing for the rest of the game with their accretion of power post-Premier League..

The responses I got (we swapped a couple of e-mails) were quite clear. The journalist agreed with every point I made, as above, with the exception of one.. the last one, to tackle United over its practices and those of the other clubs it was in cahoots with both here and in Europe.

The reply came in words to the effect that 'If you think I, or any sports writer, is going to commit professional suicide by taking on Manchester United or Alex Ferguson, you've got another think coming..'

After the game had been played and our fans behaved impeccably before and after we won 2-0, the journalist wrote a final e-mail to apologise for taking the line that City fans might 'cause trouble/be a problem'. I just wrote back to say 'Thank you' but I did also suggest people in the sports media might grow a pair of collective cojones and take on the real issues in English football, rather than simply be the ciphers of the vested interests that ran the game.

Judging by events over the past 12 years, I think I've still got a long wait ahead of me..

You make some excellent points, as ever. If I might add to your final two paragraphs, the following might apply. I posted these recollections a couple of years ago in response to a thread entitled 'How did the GPC get away with it?' with the 'it' referred to being Ferguson's treatment of the press. Sorry for banging on at length in this response quoted below but I have highlighted the salient sections that resonated with me in relation to your post above. I think you'll get my drift even if you only read those parts!

========================================================================================

How did he get away with it? Maybe the following will give you a clue (and apologies in advance for going on at length)..

In February 2008, long before City were taken over by The Sheikh, I entered into correspondence with a UK football journalist working for one of the Sunday 'quality papers'. This was and remains the only time I've ever done this. I sent an e-mail into the said sports writer, who shall remain anonymous, as I don't think it's fair to quote names in this instance and, this article apart, I've always enjoyed this writer's output and take on football matters. I sent it because I was pretty hacked off by a piece he'd written in advance of the Manchester 'derby' game that month, (in?)famously chosen by the Premier League's computer to take place during the 50th anniversary week of the Munich Air Disaster.

The newspaper article suggested that there may be 'trouble' at the Old Trafford game and that City supporters could not be trusted to behave correctly during the pre-match commemoration of the Air Disaster, let alone the game itself because, as the article pointed out, us City fans were regularly guilty of singing 'Munich' chants and making all sorts of 'Munich' gestures when confronting our arch rivals.

The article did not question the wisdom of the Premier League's decision to schedule the game as it had. In addition, there was no discussion or suggestion of any criticism of United and its historical handling of the Munich disaster aftermath down the decades; rather its focus was on emphasising that 'problems', should they arise, were likely to be down to City supporters and City supporters alone.

I pointed out several things in my e-mail response to the article:

(a) that the suggestion City fans wouldn't behave was based on no evidence
(b) that in fact, I expected City supporters to behave impeccably (as we did) as the Munich Air Disaster was, actually, MANCHESTER's disaster, involving loss of life of City-connected people and people from other walks of life
(c) that I had attended the welcome home celebration for United after losing the 1958 Cup Final barely a few months after the disaster, being taken there by my parents (I was on my Dad's shoulders), aunts and uncles (all Blues) and our neighbours (season ticket holding Reds), all chanting 'We want Matt!' as the team appeared on the Town Hall balcony
(d) that throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s Manchester commemorated the disaster with dignity, especially when it came to the 'Evening News' edition with its 'In Memoriam' notices on 6 February each year, which diminished each year with the passing of time. I can remember kids being chided by adults for speaking negatively about the disaster or making jokes about it
(e) that despite this, still there was a growing dissatisfaction about United's response to the disaster and especially the way players and their families were treated by the club, pushing them out of club houses, refusing to compensate them properly and so on (I gave the example of Albert Scanlon, who my mother would babysit for in Hulme when she was a young girl/woman and who I'd met on a couple of occasions when my parents would go to Sinclair's Oyster Bar in the 70s of a Saturday night, when Albert always spent time chatting with my Mum. He was very upset about his treatment)
(f) that United's callous behaviour post-disaster (apart from the clock at the ground) was compounded by its change of direction in the 90s onward, when suddenly 'Munich' seemed to become a marketing tool for the club post-Stock Market flotation.. yet still no proper compensation for its servants after the disaster..
(g) that the 40th anniversary commemoration in 1998 had put the tin lid on things for those of us who had been around when the crash happened, involving as it did the disgraceful payments to Eric Cantona and his entourage and, yet again, the fans being asked to stump up money for the compensation (finally, 40 years on) to any surviving players
(h) that overall, I believed that United had behaved dreadfully throughout the years since Munich; that, as above, originally what was MANCHESTER's disaster had become hijacked over time as part of the marketing legend that was underpinning the club; and that I'd love to know why our press never commented on any of the things I was pointing out to this particular journalist, never mind all of the problems that this club and a couple of others at the top of the English football hierarchy were causing for the rest of the game with their accretion of power post-Premier League..

The responses I got (we swapped a couple of e-mails) were quite clear. The journalist agreed with every point I made, as above, with the exception of one.. the last one, to tackle United over its practices and those of the other clubs it was in cahoots with both here and in Europe.

The reply came in words to the effect that 'If you think I, or any sports writer, is going to commit professional suicide by taking on Manchester United or Alex Ferguson, you've got another think coming..'

After the game had been played and our fans behaved impeccably before and after we won 2-0, the journalist wrote a final e-mail to apologise for taking the line that City fans might 'cause trouble/be a problem'. I just wrote back to say 'Thank you' but I did also suggest people in the sports media might grow a pair of collective cojones and take on the real issues in English football, rather than simply be the ciphers of the vested interests that ran the game.

Judging by events over the past 12 years, I think I've still got a long wait ahead of me..

I enjoyed your post for many reasons, one of them being that your recollection of events coincides entirely with mine when l am at a time when the memory plays tricks. More so when one reads so much stuff that has been doctored to give a deliberately false history.
When you mention the GPC it brings back to mind an article in one of the Sunday Colour Supplements many years ago. It was an interview with a BBC man who had been Head of Sport at some time in his career. We can all remember the times from the distant past to the the modern time when United were always the first and star billing on MoTD whereas we had to wait until the midnight hour until we got to see a short clip of City.
This guy recalled that if United were not first on that GPC would be on the phone the next morning complaining vociferously about it. We can look back and see that Ferguson got his way. If he could influence the running orders what else could he influence in the content?
Which brings me back to your question of how did he get away with it? We are talking about reporters being biased but here we have the top BBC Sports man being bullied by a gobby Glaswegian. These arty TV types make a big deal of their professional independence. He should have told GPC to get on his bike. Instead Ferguson got away with manipulating the media. Again.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Can we start booing Chelsea yet for having a Russian owner?

Can I tag him into human rights being violated as his mate has ordered an invasion of another country?

Or can I come across really thick like deloony and nostrils Harris and be wide of the mark?

You can also include the rags in that, happy to have the Russian state airline as a global partner. I bet they will be flying to Madrid on an Aeroflot plane.

 

[Bonzo Nododo]

There’s no doubt there’s a systematic approach not to report the facts when it comes to City and instead a deliberate angle to paint things in a different way to City’s detriment. Any negative Reports about the Premier League/Football in general you can be sure there will be pictures of Raheem Stirling or some other City Player prominent if not the only picture shown. The European Super League Fiasco was portrayed as us being at the heart of it with our Crest prominent in the Reporting when in reality we were reluctant partners at best as became clear in the subsequent days.

A small example was brought up on here. As City were destroying Porto with beautiful football, banging in the fourth goal a Telegraph reporter doing the rather silly 'live coverage' mentions the score but says plaintively, perhaps looking heavenwards with hands joined in prayer,
'Please make it stop'.
Is there any good sporting reason why a reporter on an English broadsheet should make such a puerile comment reporting on an English team?

 

[Pubteam Lomas]

A small example was brought up on here. As City were destroying Porto with beautiful football, banging in the fourth goal a Telegraph reporter doing the rather silly 'live coverage' mentions the score but says plaintively, perhaps looking heavenwards with hands joined in prayer,
'Please make it stop'.
Is there any good sporting reason why a reporter on an English broadsheet should make such a puerile comment reporting on an English team?

When he writes 'please make it stop' he's clearly writing as a fan of another club, rather than reporting on match.

I have reported on non-league games (did it for a number of years). I have a favourite non-league side but when I reported on their rivals I was always objective. If I didn't I'd get dogs abuse next time I rolled up. Even when I was 'more than fair' I got calls from club secretaries and, on one or two occasions, managers, challenging me, on what I'd written.

The guy who tweeted the contrasting reports from our win against Sporting and Liverpool's win over Porto tells you everything you need to know.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

The DT, probably the same with the rest of the media, highlights incidents of 'crowd disturbances' at matches - Forest, West Ham, Rags (as victims), and, of course, City down at St. Mary's where the front row of the away fans are engaging in 'handbags' with the camp guards. Wonder why they didn't find pictures from their extensive photo/video library of the invasion of Wembley, and didn't a game get postponed because a couple of hundred broke into a ground, and highlighted the woeful security on show? Can't quite remember which ground it was now, but i remember that the team played in the devil's colours, scarlet!

 

[Cellarite]

The last few pages, and in particular posts by Billy Shears and Prestwich Blue amongst others, have been a fantastic read.

Off the top of my head, there have been a number of suspicious goings on in the Premier League that have never really been looked at by any journalist.

Remember when "Fast-tracking" disciplinary hearings was rushed through to deal with Emmanuel Adebayor the week before the Manchester derby?

Remember when the referee from the West Ham home game changed his story and Sergio Aguero received a ban?

Remember when the Chief Executive of the Premier League said there was a "strategic plan to ensure a new name on the Premier League trophy every 6-7 years"?

Remember when the same man said that a poor Manchester United team was bad for the product?

Remember when it was reported that Liverpool and United got to vet the list of possible replacements for a subsequent Premier League Chief Executive?

Remember when Liverpool claimed to have spent £50 million in Stanley Park?

Remember when United cancelled a Premier League match because of a fake bomb but blamed a white van man in Wales and it was quickly brushed under the carpet?

Remember when United had to cancel another Premier League game after Gary Neville whipped their fans into such a frenzy that they broke into the stadium and altered the appearance of a police officer during what Neville described as "a peaceful protest"?

Remember when Liverpool were involved in the arrangements for our team bus to be attacked en route to Anfield?

Remember SKY sports becoming LFC TV for two years after they beat City 4-3, going as far as turning down the microphones in front of the away end halfway through a rendition of Bluemoon that threatened to compete with YNWA?

Remember when United paid £7 million for a player that their manager had never seen in his 26 professional matches?

What I don't remember is any of the above being given even 1% of the coverage, questions or column inches that are given to any mud that is slung City's way.

Most City fans can see quite clearly what goes on in the media. I even accept that it makes more sense from a business point of view for tv companies, newspapers and websites to show bias towards the red shirted teams. What I can't accept though, is the denial from them and the accusations from some City supporters that we are paranoid.