700 comments of which a very large number were poisonous and libellous on the Guardian's Manchester City preview. Pleased to say that few blues got involved. I cancelled my account ages ago but monitor what this media enemy says. Never have rivals supporters been so inflamed as they are now. I wouldn't mind but it has consequences. It won't be long until there are acts of violence against City fans because of media vilification, and anyone who sticks his head up against the parapet can be targeted. It is more effective to boycott the corporate media particularly those who lead the campaign against us.
I can report that the Guardian print circulation has fallen 30% in two years and taken with subscriptions is now hovering at about 105k per day. Sadly I suspect their digital business is thriving. They are though on borrowed time because at some point a major rival will go on to their digital turf and their revenues will crash. Tiny digital presences like the Telegraph, TImes, Mail etc don't count. These websites are deliberately minor to avoid cannibalising their existing print business. At some point, one of them will go all into digital. Guardian will be first but others will inevitably follow and then what happens? Hopefully some democratisation? Why should only big media be successful? Maybe niche experts will thrive. If for example you want to know about science, you don't go to a newspaper. I suspect its the same for stuff like technology, or music. FOr sport. There are specialist sites e.g., Bluemoon. Coproprate media can be jack of all trades for now but will that last?