Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Big Swifty said:
City were once involved in something not unlike this. Spurs had an England international right-back called Bert Sproston, and when Spurs travelled up to play City at Maine Road, There were frantic negotiations, and Sproston signed for City on the morning of the game on November 5, 1938, for the then huge fee of £10,000.
So he turned out that afternoon for City against the former team-mates he had travelled up from London with.
City won the game 2-0, so it was a good investment.
Sproston lost his best years to the war, but continued to play until the 1949-50 season. He then became a physiotherapist with Bolton Wanderers - some older Bluemooners may remember him. He was a Cheshire lad from Sandbach, and didn't like the life in London.
Click to expand...
My Dad often talks about Bert Sproston and often wells up when he does, he was his hero back in those days.
 
Marvin said:
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?
Click to expand...

I dropped the guardian a couple of years ago mainly due to the vile comments on City articles plus you urging Blues to do so. If you still read/monitor then try reporting the comments to the Guardian mods and have them deleted.
 
Marvin said:
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?
Click to expand...
I remember 5 or more years ago when the FT sold out to Nikkai with the reasoning that despite at that time being 75 percent digital FT could not compete with a then 100 percent digital Nikkai.
I realise that both specialize in financial news with constant number crunching but surely other media should have seen this as a warning.
I am surprised that several media sources you quote still see their paper businesses worth protecting (ie delaying digital change) but I suppose they know their customers wishes.
 
Marvin said:
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?
Click to expand...
Sorry, Marvin, your characterisation of this set of comments in the Grauniad is a bit one eyed. Yes, there is plenty of City bingo on the subject of finances but there are also many replies from people who dont appear to be City fans who are calling it out for the nonsense that it is. You cant expect to dominate and not draw some bile. Overall there was a reasonable balance given that most of the replies are from fans of other clubs.
Stay cool.
 
Shirley said:
I dropped the guardian a couple of years ago mainly due to the vile comments on City articles plus you urging Blues to do so. If you still read/monitor then try reporting the comments to the Guardian mods and have them deleted.
Click to expand...
I dropped the Guardian once I worked out that they were liars. Purposeful liars who knew they were lying and printed it anyway. I has an email conversation with the editor about a story being objectively false and his reply was "yes well it COULD be true so I'm keeping it up".

Their reputation is bollocks. Built by left wing people trying to promote their viewpoints and media as correct with no regards to accuracy. Fuck the Guardian.
 
Damocles said:
I dropped the Guardian once I worked out that they were liars. Purposeful liars who knew they were lying and printed it anyway. I has an email conversation with the editor about a story being objectively false and his reply was "yes well it COULD be true so I'm keeping it up".

Their reputation is bollocks. Built by left wing people trying to promote their viewpoints and media as correct with no regards to accuracy. Fuck the Guardian.
Click to expand...
Do you think that our perception of the media generally as publishing news items rather than inventing news is at fault?
 
Damocles said:
I dropped the Guardian once I worked out that they were liars. Purposeful liars who knew they were lying and printed it anyway. I has an email conversation with the editor about a story being objectively false and his reply was "yes well it COULD be true so I'm keeping it up".

Their reputation is bollocks. Built by left wing people trying to promote their viewpoints and media as correct with no regards to accuracy. Fuck the Guardian.
Click to expand...
Once you remove all the speculative words (could/maybe/might, possibly, etc.), out of context quotes and opinion comments from most newspaper articles there is actually very little substance.
 
roypaulknewmyfather said:
Like the sentiment but the British media is "one of the most partisan in the western world" - NYT frequently mentions this. There will never be any democratic input into the media in this country so long as wealthy individual owners are in control, they issue for the money not a balanced content eg Murdoch is supposed to hate the content of Fox news but loves the revenue. It's no different here, one of the reasons I stopped paying for news many years ago.
Click to expand...

Murdock hates Fox News? Then why do all his media channels drive the exact same narratives? He’s one of the most dangerous men in existence.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Once you remove all the speculative words (could/maybe/might, possibly, etc.), out of context quotes and opinion comments from most newspaper articles there is actually very little substance.
Click to expand...
This specific incident was about an objective thing. They were quoting a study that basically had a number, let's say 100, and the Guardian printed the number to be 7000. I pointed out that that was not what the study said was the number, they said that I couldn't prove it wasn't 7000.
 
Damocles said:
This specific incident was about an objective thing. They were quoting a study that basically had a number, let's say 100, and the Guardian printed the number to be 7000. I pointed out that that was not what the study said was the number, they said that I couldn't prove it wasn't 7000.
Click to expand...
They do just make sh*t up at times. I stopped buying daily newspapers about 15 years ago, and weekend papers about 5 years ago.
 
Damocles said:
I dropped the Guardian once I worked out that they were liars. Purposeful liars who knew they were lying and printed it anyway. I has an email conversation with the editor about a story being objectively false and his reply was "yes well it COULD be true so I'm keeping it up".

Their reputation is bollocks. Built by left wing people trying to promote their viewpoints and media as correct with no regards to accuracy. Fuck the Guardian.
Click to expand...
I agree that they represent a certain world view and sell news based on their interpretation of the world, and because they are opinionated they are irrational i.e., they will pursue MCFC until the end of the Earth regardless of the rights and wrongs because we are inherently wrong in their eyes. Not sure I know what right and left-wing is now. An anachronism from the East-West divide.
 
roypaulknewmyfather said:
Like the sentiment but the British media is "one of the most partisan in the western world" - NYT frequently mentions this. There will never be any democratic input into the media in this country so long as wealthy individual owners are in control, they issue for the money not a balanced content eg Murdoch is supposed to hate the content of Fox news but loves the revenue. It's no different here, one of the reasons I stopped paying for news many years ago.
Click to expand...
NYT is hardly a bastion of impartialty.

Print media in the UK is a diminishing influence. The big influential beast is the BBC with it's television and radio channels and particularly its online presence. All funded by a regressive tax that disproportionately hits the poor.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
They do just make sh*t up at times. I stopped buying daily newspapers about 15 years ago, and weekend papers about 5 years ago.
Click to expand...
Let me make an analogy to professional wrestling, so bare with me.

There was a wrestling company in the 1980s owned by Ted Turner called WCW. Wrestling was essentially a live event business model no different from a concert and the objective was to promote storylines that would want people to buy a ticket to watch the conclusion of those stories. There was this guy called Sid Vicious - big guy, looked like a mean bastard, but he was all talk and wasn't a very good wrestler. There was another guy called Arn Anderson, shorter guy but he understood crowd psychology and was a great wrestler.
You see if they heavily promoted Sid Vicious into a main event type role then they would do a massive crowd, probably make a million dollars in one night but 3 months later nobody would care about him whereas Arn Anderson would never draw that crowd but he would make the company consistent good money for 20 straight years. They chose Sid Vicious. They were bankrupt two years later.

I feel like the British media have done this. They have taken the big money now by being sensationalist but in doing so have lost the trust of the public that could have kept them in business for decades to come. Once that trust is lost in a media organisation then it never comes back and they have to go more and more sensational over the years just to stand still.
 
HelloCity said:
Murdock hates Fox News? Then why do all his media channels drive the exact same narratives? He’s one of the most dangerous men in existence.
Click to expand...
Who does he compare with, on the dangerous scale?
ISIS? Kim Jong Un? The generals of Myanmar? Putin? Trump? The new president of Iran? Antivaxers? Conspiracy theorists? Katie Hopkins?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top