Media Thread - 2021/22

[The perfect fumble]

Great post. Here's what he said:



I didn't agree with the "vast majority" comment. I do agree there are some fans who will look for negatives in everything. We see that on here when someone complains about a piece someone has written, but most of us struggle to see what the problem is. But I'd say that at least 80% of coverage of City isn't fair or balanced. So 20% (at most) definitely isn't a "vast majority".

I certainly don't expect balance from the likes of United Stand or Anfield Wrap. I do expect it from the mainstream sports pages but you get the likes of Delaney, the smug middle-class racists in the Guardian, Herbert & Nick Harris in the Mail, Rob Harris at the Press Association and people like Syed at the times. It's not just that the coverage isn't fair and balanced, it's hateful.

This is from May last year.

The Anfield Wrap decided to do a "research" piece on the unhappy clubs of Manchester.....

Manchester: A Tale Of Two Owners​

They went to the swamp and it was all Glazers Out and the usual nonsense. But I've skipped to the Etihad where David Mooney gave a personal account of his conflicted relationship with City, based on our owner's human rights record and particularly their attitude to gays.




I have no doubt David feels these things deeply, his sincerity is not in question, where we profoundly disagree is when he extrapolates his personal view to paint a picture of a conflicted fan base.

"There are factions within the fan base"

"There are people who will go in to bat for the club no matter what happens"

"There are people who will go in to bat for the owners because of what they've done for the club"

"You can't help that"

David believes that most football fans fall in love with their club as kids, brainwashed by their parents, but as we get older and wiser we can see the bigger picture. Presumably in a more enlightened state of mind there are "City fans who aren't comfortable with the ownership and the ownership model", but can enjoy what takes place on the pitch in the consolation they'll still be cheering on their beloved club if the owners decide to leave.

One of the manifestations of David's angst is that he gives the club his season ticket money and nothing more.

"It's not City fans fault that the Premier League allows owners like Sheikh Mansour in"

"You can be critical of City fans for enjoying that (our success) and accepting that (our owners human rights record) but you shouldn't expect them (City fans) to just drop everything and walk away."

 

[cheekybids]

This is from May last year.

The Anfield Wrap decided to do a "research" piece on the unhappy clubs of Manchester.....

Manchester: A Tale Of Two Owners​

They went to the swamp and it was all Glazers Out and the usual nonsense. But I've skipped to the Etihad where David Mooney gave a personal account of his conflicted relationship with City, based on our owner's human rights record and particularly their attitude to gays.




I have no doubt David feels these things deeply, his sincerity is not in question, where we profoundly disagree is when he extrapolates his personal view to paint a picture of a conflicted fan base.

"There are factions within the fan base"

"There are people who will go in to bat for the club no matter what happens"

"There are people who will go in to bat for the owners because of what they've done for the club"

"You can't help that"

David believes that most football fans fall in love with their club as kids, brainwashed by their parents, but as we get older and wiser we can see the bigger picture. Presumably in a more enlightened state of mind there are "City fans who aren't comfortable with the ownership and the ownership model", but can enjoy what takes place on the pitch with the consolation they'll still be cheering on their beloved club if the owners decide to leave.

One of the manifestations of David's angst is that he gives the club his season ticket money and nothing more.

"It's not City fans fault that the Premier League allows owners like Sheikh Mansour in"

"You can be critical of City fans for enjoying that (our success) and accepting that (our owners human rights record) but you shouldn't expect them (City fans) to just drop everything and walk away."

ffs add him to the list Conn, Schindler & Mooney.

 

[JRockBlues]

Here's my own take on the agenda (or not) in the media, There isn't one per se. Do we get fair and balanced reporting? Hell, no! Unfortunately in these times of clickbait headlines and negative articles it's just what sells Fans of the red shirt mafia clubs, and since we've become the most successful club in English football it's harder to find a neutral fan, prefer to see things that put us in a bad light. Journalists are going to write what keeps them in a job and as it means putting us down then that's what they'll do. There's just more people out there that will click on it.

 

[ZanteWeatherman]

Any media outlet that employs James Pearce and Jake Pitt-Brooke should be avoided at all costs.

Any media outlet should be avoided at all costs.
Fixed it.

 

[M12Blue]

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.

That be a tricky one if this escalates and they start dropping bombs

 

[ZanteWeatherman]

There can be absolutely no doubt that there's a bias towards this club, no ifs buts or maybe. Clear and obvious.

Put it to VAR..... oh wait, that would be a waste of time, it is absolutely 'clear and obvious'.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I have no doubt David feels these things deeply, his sincerity is not in question, where we profoundly disagree is when he extrapolates his personal view to paint a picture of a conflicted fan base.

"There are factions within the fan base"

"There are people who will go in to bat for the club no matter what happens"

"There are people who will go in to bat for the owners because of what they've done for the club"

And those fans who do go in to bat for the club, do it precisely because we don't get a fair and balanced treatment in the media.

 

[Spurs quarter 69]

Dermot the dick as sided with us for the penalty vs Spurs.
Wow what a Coincidence that his untold wisdom came in a game where we got beat.
Why did Sly even use this incident in a comparable with the Scottish Zit not getting a red vs Leeds?

Answer... to keep our loss mainstream

Fucking wankers.
So glad Khan got beat by Brook after the shocking backing of him throughout the build up by Sly
Love it when they are left with egg on their faces.
City will do it again to them when we win the league

Could never be Happy to see a Lancy boxer beaten by a Yorky. It's a great thing that all Mancs back our fighters loads of rags I know would support Ricky Hatton while I and countless other blues are fans of the Gypsy King Tyson Fury.

 

[JPAMCR]

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.

Great stuff. Perhaps David Mooney might be able to answer that? Or even do a piece?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It's quite bizarre that David's seemingly set himself up for a fall as far as his standing with City fans is concerned. It's almost as though someone like The Athletic has said to him "We'd like to take you on the payroll full time but you'll have to publicly distance yourself from City in some way". Now I don't for one moment think that is the case but you do wonder.

I understand where he and Crafton are coming from an LGBTQ point of view but there are hardly hundreds of openly LGBTQ sportsmen in the West, particularly in football. So they're both making a living reporting on a sport that appears to be intrinsically homophobic.