MUEN again and again

[steviemc]

The last time the rags won the "league cup" they had 15 pages about it in the MUEN. Apparently what I've read on here we had 9 or 12?
Biased rag paper that I wouldn't wrap my chips in.

That's some impressive investigative journalism. Do you keep back issues for that sort of info?

Nah mate I just made it up, if the MUEN can make shit up and get away with it, so can we.

Fair do's pal. I don't really expect too much from any of the media groups nowadays. Perhaps less coverage may help us discourage bandwagon fans and day-trippers.

 

[Benarbia_is_god]

We sound like a bunch of Scousers with all this agenda rubbish that has infested the forum.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Okay okay, so the original post was completely wrong, but there was a distinct lack of reporting yesterday of the fact that we won the league cup, on all media news outlets. I recorded ITN and BBC and we got less than 10 seconds combined. Sky showed abit more, but they had the TV rights so they had to get their money's worth.

I thought that I would wake up this morning to find more reporting of the cup final, but nothing but a whimper.

Fuck the domestic cups, let the kids have a run out and throw everything we have in the PL and CL.

Seriously, what's the point anymore? We've had 3 wembley finals since 2011 against opponents such as Stoke, Wigan and Sunderland. Why? coz nobody gives a fook about the fa cup, the league cup or even the England football team. The Fa might as well shut up shop and let the PL run the lot.

Rant over

Jesus Christ, what a tantrum that is - all because in your mind you've not seen enough in the papers.
The paper review this morning on sky news had sub headlines of our triumph on every front page, even the broad sheets. I have no idea what the actual articles were like, however. All the shows on talksport today have mentioned the game. There is a 9 page pull out here I'm the evening news. Sky news actually had a breaking news story immediately after the game.
As for who we have faced, and I'm guessing you mean we have only faced those teams because nobody is taking the two cup seriously? That's a nonsense for a start. Bet big money united would have loved to have been there yesterday, as would the other top teams who, as I type this, remain trophyless. The reason we have faced who we have faced is because in both our FA cup campaigns where we've reached the final, we've knocked 2 of those top teams out in the semi's. United got knocked out by our opponents yesterday in this competition.

Whether we have had enough reporting of the win is up to each person individually to make their own minds up about. Personally I saw plenty of us this morning alone, as stated above, so there's no issue there for me. Others, like you, seem to think the opposite. Either way nothing changes result, so who cares?

Tell you what, pidge, I got back to my hotel last night, turned the telly on and within 2 minutes the highlights of the game were on BBC.

I drove back in the morning and put talksport on and our game was the main sports story. On the show itself there was a piece where they'd put the highlights of the game to music, there was lots of discussion about the game, a feature on the league cup etc. I stopped at the services and could see pictures of vinny on the front of every paper. I got back In the car, put radio 5 on and we were also the main sports story. Got back home, put sky sports on and was almost immediately given reruns of the goals, footage of Pellegrini in London, an interview with Brian Kidd and footage outside our stadium interviewing fans.

These mentalists are running around, sour-faced, bitter and irrational, looking for a bias where none exists, because they suffer from a bad dose of Likkle City insecurity. If it was united who'd won the exact same people would be raging about supposed media overload.

 

[Benarbia_is_god]

Didsbury Dave spot on.

If anything I have noticed the media sticking the boot into the rags and Moyes rather than big them up which is claimed on here other and other again.

 

[Petetheblu]

Okay okay, so the original post was completely wrong, but there was a distinct lack of reporting yesterday of the fact that we won the league cup, on all media news outlets. I recorded ITN and BBC and we got less than 10 seconds combined. Sky showed abit more, but they had the TV rights so they had to get their money's worth.

I thought that I would wake up this morning to find more reporting of the cup final, but nothing but a whimper.

Fuck the domestic cups, let the kids have a run out and throw everything we have in the PL and CL.

Seriously, what's the point anymore? We've had 3 wembley finals since 2011 against opponents such as Stoke, Wigan and Sunderland. Why? coz nobody gives a fook about the fa cup, the league cup or even the England football team. The Fa might as well shut up shop and let the PL run the lot.

Rant over

Jesus Christ, what a tantrum that is - all because in your mind you've not seen enough in the papers.
The paper review this morning on sky news had sub headlines of our triumph on every front page, even the broad sheets. I have no idea what the actual articles were like, however. All the shows on talksport today have mentioned the game. There is a 9 page pull out here I'm the evening news. Sky news actually had a breaking news story immediately after the game.
As for who we have faced, and I'm guessing you mean we have only faced those teams because nobody is taking the two cup seriously? That's a nonsense for a start. Bet big money united would have loved to have been there yesterday, as would the other top teams who, as I type this, remain trophyless. The reason we have faced who we have faced is because in both our FA cup campaigns where we've reached the final, we've knocked 2 of those top teams out in the semi's. United got knocked out by our opponents yesterday in this competition.

Whether we have had enough reporting of the win is up to each person individually to make their own minds up about. Personally I saw plenty of us this morning alone, as stated above, so there's no issue there for me. Others, like you, seem to think the opposite. Either way nothing changes result, so who cares?

Tell you what, pidge, I got back to my hotel last night, turned the telly on and within 2 minutes the highlights of the game were on BBC.

I drove back in the morning and put talksport on and our game was the main sports story. On the show itself there was a piece where they'd put the highlights of the game to music, there was lots of discussion about the game, a feature on the league cup etc. I stopped at the services and could see pictures of vinny on the front of every paper. I got back In the car, put radio 5 on and we were also the main sports story. Got back home, put sky sports on and was almost immediately given reruns of the goals, footage of Pellegrini in London, an interview with Brian Kidd and footage outside our stadium interviewing fans.

These mentalists are running around, sour-faced, bitter and irrational, looking for a bias where none exists, because they suffer from a bad dose of Likkle City insecurity. If it was united who'd won the exact same people would be raging about supposed media overload.

Yerrr!! But apart from that it was hardly mentioned Dave......

 

[oakiecokie]

We sound like a bunch of Scousers with all this agenda rubbish that has infested the forum.

To some extent I agree.However some are more like 10 year olds following the school bully."It must be right as he says so" they scream.
My Rag mates also shout its more like the MCEN,with the Blues getting bigger and better coverage and I`m not just talking about the last couple of years.They certainly dropped a big bollock over the "empty seats" affair,something which even I couldn`t tolerate,but overall people seem to make their minds up when certain posters continue to make negative threads when in reality theres fuck all to read in to.
Agenda from the MEN against City my arse.I`ve lost count the number of times we`ve had some wonderful coverage from them.

 

[Bill]

We sound like a bunch of Scousers with all this agenda rubbish that has infested the forum.

To some extent I agree.However some are more like 10 year olds following the school bully."It must be right as he says so" they scream.
My Rag mates also shout its more like the MCEN,with the Blues getting bigger and better coverage and I`m not just talking about the last couple of years.They certainly dropped a big bollock over the "empty seats" affair,something which even I couldn`t tolerate,but overall people seem to make their minds up when certain posters continue to make negative threads when in reality theres fuck all to read in to.
Agenda from the MEN against City my arse.I`ve lost count the number of times we`ve had some wonderful coverage from them.

what you can't count to 3?

 

[barryo]

This was on the MUEN website last week.
Look at the picture and see the figures of how much he gets paid a week.
There is no mention of it in the article which leads me to believe that it was done to counter the negative press the scum were getting with Rooneys new contract.
It was quickly removed.

 

[Shirley]

This was on the MUEN website last week.
Look at the picture and see the figures of how much he gets paid a week.
There is no mention of it in the article which leads me to believe that it was done to counter the negative press the scum were getting with Rooneys new contract.
It was quickly removed.

Interestingly by Stuart The Blue Brennan.

 

[Anonymous]

Think the best way to deal with it is to simply ignore it and not draw attention to it on here. By posting the links etc you encourage people to click through which is what seemingly some/most don't want.

 

[west didsblue]

I had a look at the front page of the MEN website on Saturday and compared it with the front page of the Sunderland Echo's website. The Echo probably had 3/4 of the front page dedicated to the League Cup final, whereas the MEN had absolutely fuck all apart from a tiny link near the bottom of the page. Pathetic.

Did you look inside? There was a 12-page pullout.

I'm sure there was.

I was talking about the website on the day before the match where I would have expected the coverage on the home page of the website of Manchester's largest local news organisation to reflect the fact that one of Manchester's biggest teams was in a cup final the following day.

And I'm not sure why I'm being called a hypocrite by one poster for making an observation about the website. I didn't know that I had to buy a copy of the printed version in order to comment on the website.

 

[stuart brennan]

This was on the MUEN website last week.
Look at the picture and see the figures of how much he gets paid a week.
There is no mention of it in the article which leads me to believe that it was done to counter the negative press the scum were getting with Rooneys new contract.
It was quickly removed.

Do you think it is more likely that this picture was used by accident - the sub-editor accidentally attached the pic of Aguero already used in this article:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-city-player-wages-fans-6753659" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ns-6753659</a>

As you say, it was "quickly removed" - because he realised his error.

But why let the truth get in the way of another load of paranoid tosh?

 

[Anonymous]

Errors unfortunately happen, as Stuart points out. It's just unfortunate that there seem to be so many when it comes to your City coverage.

Once bitten ought to make you twice shy.

 

[stuart brennan]

That's the problem with instant news - people rush to get stuff up, and errors can occur - they are usually small, harmless ones like this.
The problem is that, with the level of paranoia amongst some people on here, every little error becomes interpreted as a major slight, all part of a conspiracy theory.
It's not just City coverage where these things happen, but other stuff, and stuff which could easily be interpreted as anti-United, does not get highlighted on here, nor does the overwhelming amount of positive, pro-City stuff we publish.

 

[Neville Kneville]

That's the problem with instant news - people rush to get stuff up, and errors can occur - they are usually small, harmless ones like this.
The problem is that, with the level of paranoia amongst some people on here, every little error becomes interpreted as a major slight, all part of a conspiracy theory.
It's not just City coverage where these things happen, but other stuff, and stuff which could easily be interpreted as anti-United, does not get highlighted on here, nor does the overwhelming amount of positive, pro-City stuff we publish.

When you do a particularly interesting piece, it gets complimented on this site & others, & you have done several particularly good ones in recent times.

If an article is just repeating the same stuff we've all read from other sources, which many are, it's unlikely anyone will mention it.

If someone puts out a picture of Aguero with his wages attached however, for seemingly no reason, it's not for us to know that it was down to incompetence rather than deliberate.

Someone decided the piece about empty seats was acceptable, so how are we supposed to know the Aguero picture wasn't intentional ?

 

[stuart brennan]

If someone puts out a picture of Aguero with his wages attached however, for seemingly no reason, it's not for us to know that it was down to incompetence rather than deliberate.

Someone decided the piece about empty seats was acceptable, so how are we supposed to know the Aguero picture wasn't intentional ?

It's the fact that even when there is an innocent error, it is used as "proof" of an anti-City agenda, with no thought that the explanation could be far simpler.
I'm not going back over the empty seats stuff, as I made my position clear, and it has been dealt with internally.
There will always be mistakes, as in any media organisation - indeed any company, anywhere in the world - but to interpret them all as some attempt to undermine City is just ridiculous - at times it makes this forum look like an insane asylum!<br /><br />-- Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:25 pm --<br /><br />

If an article is just repeating the same stuff we've all read from other sources, which many are, it's unlikely anyone will mention it.

Just for the record, it is far more likely that the other sources got the stuff from the MEN, than vice versa! Because you read it elsewhere first doesn't mean they had it first.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Dont buy the paper and dont click the link.

Why not click the link? If you click the link from Bluemoon, doesn't that mean they (MUEN) have to pay Bluemoon (Ric) for a referral?

Not the other way round.

 

[Rösler von Stretfordbömber]

Stuart,

So are you taking the position that the MEN is fair and unbiased as far its overall coverage of us vis-a-vis the rags?

Because I just don't see that. I'm not saying there is an "agenda" to "undermine" City. I think it is nothing more or less complicated than this:

Number of City fans < Number of (rag fans + fans of other clubs jealous of City's resources and newfound success.)

So if you are a media outlet wouldn't there be more upside to being slanted in an anti-City direction? It seems like you would please far more people than you would alienate.

(Not speaking as to you personally, but rather the MEN as a whole and most of the UK media here.)

 

[SPIDERBOY]

This was on the MUEN website last week.
Look at the picture and see the figures of how much he gets paid a week.
There is no mention of it in the article which leads me to believe that it was done to counter the negative press the scum were getting with Rooneys new contract.
It was quickly removed.

Do you think it is more likely that this picture was used by accident - the sub-editor accidentally attached the pic of Aguero already used in this article:

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-city-player-wages-fans-6753659" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ns-6753659</a>

As you say, it was "quickly removed" - because he realised his error.

But why let the truth get in the way of another load of paranoid tosh?

Your phone needs charging mate.

 

[stuart brennan]

Stuart,

So are you taking the position that the MEN is fair and unbiased as far its overall coverage of us vis-a-vis the rags?

Because I just don't see that. I'm not saying there is an "agenda" to "undermine" City. I think it is nothing more or less complicated than this:

Number of City fans < Number of (rag fans + fans of other clubs jealous of City's resources and newfound success.)

So if you are a media outlet wouldn't there be more upside to being slanted in an anti-City direction? It seems like you would please far more people than you would alienate.

(Not speaking as to you personally, but rather the MEN as a whole and most of the UK media here.)

We've been over this argument many times before, but your point is deeply flawed.
We are selling, and if you are selling something, it makes no commercial sense to try to sell only to one part of your market.
We are a Manchester paper, and need to tap into the attraction of BOTH United and City, and we do that. But we are also not the official website, and that means we are prepared to criticise BOTH clubs, which we do.
Of course the times when we publish stuff which is seen by United fans as being anti-Red, never makes it on here, so those posters who come on here and boast that they don't read the MEN never get to see the true picture.
Interestingly, City themselves don't see as us anti-City at all - the feedback I get is that they are generally very pleased with our coverage, and they continue to advertise in the paper, as the best way to reach their core market.
That doesn't mean they don't get annoyed with aspects of our coverage, especially when we get something wrong - but that goes exactly the same for United.