Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
bobbyowenquiff said:
It is really strange. When you consider all the possible angles such as Pep returning to Bayern, Haaland a former arch rival with Dortmund, the tactical battle between Pep and Tuchel or the revenge battle after the CL final Chelsea win, or the European Royalty v the New Money team, Leroy Sane etc, just the whole PL v German football angle. It is just bizarre to do a snide piece about Ederson. The Ederson article would be ok in isolation but the timing is indicative of biased judgement by the BBC. They did a short article about City's ground expansion yesterday and, unusually opened it up for comments. The thread consisted of hundreds of snide comments by fans about City's poor fanbase (the Emptyhad etc etc) but they were not edited by the staff in Salford. The BBC has abandoned any concept of fair, unbiased, coverage when it comes to City. A disgrace really considering we pay for it. There is a cultural problem within the online team.
Click to expand...
To be fair they exhausted the Tuchel bollocks to death before the 1st leg.

But sadly it blew up in their faces yet AGAIN.
 
BBC North West Today briefly mention that City are playing Bayern tonight and then spend 5 minutes featuring Rochdale, Stockport County, Salford City, Bolton, Burnley, Blackpool and Wigan. The absolutely pathetic, jealous, agenda driven cunts.
 
mexico1970 said:
It really shouldn't though, to be fair we have a BIG game the scousers v Leeds was a midtable squabble at best.
Click to expand...

I agree. Just think they're really inconsistent rather than it being a City thing.

What was an anti City thing was allowing comments on the stadium expansion and having it as the 2nd top story. They knew exactly what they were doing and got the attention they were looking for.

Sky and the Mail did the same thing.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It is really strange. When you consider all the possible angles such as Pep returning to Bayern, Haaland a former arch rival with Dortmund, the tactical battle between Pep and Tuchel or the revenge battle after the CL final Chelsea win, or the European Royalty v the New Money team, Leroy Sane etc, just the whole PL v German football angle. It is just bizarre to do a snide piece about Ederson. The Ederson article would be ok in isolation but the timing is indicative of biased judgement by the BBC. They did a short article about City's ground expansion yesterday and, unusually opened it up for comments. The thread consisted of hundreds of snide comments by fans about City's poor fanbase (the Emptyhad etc etc) but they were not edited by the staff in Salford. The BBC has abandoned any concept of fair, unbiased, coverage when it comes to City. A disgrace really considering we pay for it. There is a cultural problem within the online team.
Click to expand...

People used to say it was because the pundits came from successful sides and represented them but that doesn't explain how the scousers get represented so heavily now that their success is historic and the rags aren't far short of them.

Yup, something more to it probably.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It is really strange. When you consider all the possible angles such as Pep returning to Bayern, Haaland a former arch rival with Dortmund, the tactical battle between Pep and Tuchel or the revenge battle after the CL final Chelsea win, or the European Royalty v the New Money team, Leroy Sane etc, just the whole PL v German football angle. It is just bizarre to do a snide piece about Ederson. The Ederson article would be ok in isolation but the timing is indicative of biased judgement by the BBC. They did a short article about City's ground expansion yesterday and, unusually opened it up for comments. The thread consisted of hundreds of snide comments by fans about City's poor fanbase (the Emptyhad etc etc) but they were not edited by the staff in Salford. The BBC has abandoned any concept of fair, unbiased, coverage when it comes to City. A disgrace really considering we pay for it. There is a cultural problem within the online team.
Click to expand...
I thought the snide article about Ederson was Bardsley actually defending Eddie?
 
argyle said:
I agree. Just think they're really inconsistent rather than it being a City thing.

What was an anti City thing was allowing comments on the stadium expansion and having it as the 2nd top story. They knew exactly what they were doing and got the attention they were looking for.

Sky and the Mail did the same thing.
Click to expand...
Dead right they knew what they were doing.
They're like the Jeremy Vine show on radio 2, drop in a subject and then shit stir it between 2 factions
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It is really strange. When you consider all the possible angles such as Pep returning to Bayern, Haaland a former arch rival with Dortmund, the tactical battle between Pep and Tuchel or the revenge battle after the CL final Chelsea win, or the European Royalty v the New Money team, Leroy Sane etc, just the whole PL v German football angle. It is just bizarre to do a snide piece about Ederson. The Ederson article would be ok in isolation but the timing is indicative of biased judgement by the BBC. They did a short article about City's ground expansion yesterday and, unusually opened it up for comments. The thread consisted of hundreds of snide comments by fans about City's poor fanbase (the Emptyhad etc etc) but they were not edited by the staff in Salford. The BBC has abandoned any concept of fair, unbiased, coverage when it comes to City. A disgrace really considering we pay for it. There is a cultural problem within the online team.
Click to expand...
Did you read the "snide" article about Ederson?

It's actually a long in-depth look at why the people who say he's performed badly this season are almost entirely wrong.
 
argyle said:
I agree. Just think they're really inconsistent rather than it being a City thing.

What was an anti City thing was allowing comments on the stadium expansion and having it as the 2nd top story. They knew exactly what they were doing and got the attention they were looking for.

Sky and the Mail did the same thing.
Click to expand...
It is not just anti-City. It is inconsistent but pro United and LFC most of the time. The stadium expansion story placement was deliberate of course. There are some indviduals in the online operation who are incapable of being impartial and do not have proper journalstic experience for the role they are doing. They are doing a lot of damage to the already damaged repuation of the BBC. It is part of a broader cultural problem.
To be fair to the BBC there are plenty of dedicated and honest people who work there but they are drowned out by the public school banter boys who rule the roost. The whole organisation is in a crisis which threatens its entire existence. It is not just a simple left-wing/right-wing bias issue either. It is much deeper than just politics.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It is really strange. When you consider all the possible angles such as Pep returning to Bayern, Haaland a former arch rival with Dortmund, the tactical battle between Pep and Tuchel or the revenge battle after the CL final Chelsea win, or the European Royalty v the New Money team, Leroy Sane etc, just the whole PL v German football angle. It is just bizarre to do a snide piece about Ederson. The Ederson article would be ok in isolation but the timing is indicative of biased judgement by the BBC. They did a short article about City's ground expansion yesterday and, unusually opened it up for comments. The thread consisted of hundreds of snide comments by fans about City's poor fanbase (the Emptyhad etc etc) but they were not edited by the staff in Salford. The BBC has abandoned any concept of fair, unbiased, coverage when it comes to City. A disgrace really considering we pay for it. There is a cultural problem within the online team.
Click to expand...
Yup. I had exactly the same thoughts reading the BBC today.

It's one thing that it isn't poluar for the large fanbases of lfc and utd... but it's another when they won't even cover it for City fans.

If we win anything this year I hope the team present a big fuck you poster for the media.
 
No one reading she ships/badge article can seriously come away with the feeling it is anti-City. It talks about the ship being a symbol of Manchester before the canal was built and that the only logical conclusion is that it is celebrating Manchester’s international trade, which was cotton and slaves on 2 of 3 legs. As other have pointed out it is part of The Guardian’s navel gazing on the subject and they are doing nothing wrong highlighting that a lot of the historical wealth of the country was based on slavery and exploitation. Not exactly something that was focussed on in my history lessons. The fact that both City and United incorporated the ship in their badge is understandable, but it is a fair question to ask whether we would do so now.

Even if this article can be seen as the ‘wokerati’ at work, it does not mean that he isn‘t right. Comparisons with The Gunners aren’t entirely valid as guns can also be used to defend the country and a gun isn’t ‘arguably’ a symbol of a centuries long genocide - and even if a technical connection with bad things can also be made, it doesn’t make the ship any better.

At the end of the day it isn’t the biggest issue facing the clubs at present (especially United) but on reflection I would rather see the bee than the ship.
 
Same old shit from the Daily United.

A truly shockingly negative headline and article about Pep and the team, instead of being positive and upbeat after a great 3-0 1st leg win against Bayern Munich. Along with the usual stock picture of Pep looking annoyed and frustrated.

Imagine the positive headlines and numerous positive articles in the Daily United if the Rags were taking a 3-0 lead to Bayern Munich in the CL tonight.

F*cking c*nts!

Screenshot_20230419-153527~2.png
 
jrb said:
Same old shit from the Daily United.

A truly shockingly negative headline and article about Pep and the team, instead of being positive and upbeat after a great 3-0 1st leg win against Bayern Munich. Along with the usual stock picture of Pep looking annoyed and frustrated.

Imagine the positive headlines and numerous positive articles in the Daily United if the Rags were taking a 3-0 lead to Bayern Munich in the CL tonight.

F*cking c*nts!

View attachment 75623
Click to expand...
That is a perfect example of the type of story not written for City fans but to attract clicks from redshirt plastics and banter merchants
 
chesterguy said:
No BBC coverage of either Pep’s or Gundo’s pre CL press conferences. Bet there will be of the United’s. It is an organisation no longer fit for purpose and should no longer be funded by public money, Move it to a subscription or advert funded model as the founding principles it was built on no longer apply
Click to expand...
I share the frustration (not just regarding City coverage but the whole Tory propaganda machine that the organisation has become is wholly immoral). That said...

Probably an argument for Off Topic, so I will make this short and sweet but people should be very careful what they wish for regarding the future of the BBC.

It's no coincidence that the same organisations calling for a dilution of the BBC are also those trying to make the NHS that little bit more unworkable by arguing against a pay rise for junior doctors.
 
jrb said:
Same old shit from the Daily United.

A truly shockingly negative headline and article about Pep and the team, instead of being positive and upbeat after a great 3-0 1st leg win against Bayern Munich. Along with the usual stock picture of Pep looking annoyed and frustrated.

Imagine the positive headlines and numerous positive articles in the Daily United if the Rags were taking a 3-0 lead to Bayern Munich in the CL tonight.

F*cking c*nts!

View attachment 75623
Click to expand...
Absolutely disgraceful!
 
argyle said:
Whenever an article looks at past links to slavery/racism there is a very strange and angry reaction to them - usually the headline - as I doubt people actually read them.
Click to expand...

I find articles like that uaually have some good research behind them, followed by some very lazy and limited thought processes. It is funny how they can start off trying to be half intelligent and broad, and end up being incredibly thick and narrow. Probably because despite best efforts to supposedly present 'both sides' of an argument (that itself rarely even exists), they ultimately end up slaves to just one take.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top