Sky Analysis Bias

[inbetween]

The Mail covering the win superbly.........

 

[dom]

SSN have just compared the costs of the city and sunderland teams from today. Why? I have no idea, smalltime wankers

Did they also compare the cost of the rags team (x 2) when Sunderland beat them in the semi to show how bad yoonitey are?

An even more pertinent hypothetical would be to imagine Sky doing the same if Cheslea had been Sunderland's opponents yesterday.

Both us and the Chavs have been completely transformed by external money during the Sky era so if a graphic appearing showing the disparity between Mourinho and Puyet's financial muscle cannot be envisioned then you have to conclude it's a shit trick by Sky.

And it is a shit trick by Sky. But they're not alone - yesterday I was too drunk and too ecstatic to be looking out for predictable jibes yet I encountered them right across the media in their portrayal of only our third major trophy in 38 years.

I don't believe there is an agenda. In fact I think the word undermines our genuine cause for anger on this issue.

I do however believe that the media in general - right across from newspaper columnists to matchday commentators - are purposely projecting back onto the football public the widespread notion that anything we achieve has been done solely through vast resources and thus is almost meaningless.
They are giving the people what they want - and saying what they probably rightly believe others are thinking - for their own ends.

Now when this occurs during a discussion show or is tummy-shitted across a newspaper column then I usually scowl but move on, realising this is all just ultimately a business appeasing the majority of their customers.

But yesterday I encountered this utterly dismissive portrayal of us during news reports, not opinion pieces - and thats where I personally draw the line.

I've gone through a lifetime of shite and disappointment supporting City - well over three decades of it.
And yesterday I witnessed us winning the League Cup for the first time since I was 3 with goals that gobsmacked in their brilliance.

Yet the reporting was repeatedly corrupted by belittling digs at our expense.

I've not been one to shout agenda but I've truly had enough now. It actually bordered on the surreal!

Excellent post

 

[Marvin]

When Sunderland scored I did myself find Tyler going a bit OTT, but it's just the david and goliath mentality if anything, (IMO). He jizzed his pants over Toure's goal too though, so no problem.

As the Blue who (bizarrely) went on redcafe has said, other fans think Sky are all pro us and anti them. At the end of the day though, it doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things.

Football reporting has to be set in a commercial context, and media organisations use the antipathy towards the new kid on the block to make money

Until you get that you will not appreciate that the football industry is indeed weighted against City because the owners of media capital market their product and tailor it to towards the Man Utd Bitter. Maybe in time things will change

At the moment there is a material reason behind the hostile reporting and it's no good ignoring it.

I have seen explanations from Journalists explaining that they wrote a positive write-up about City / a player, and it was presented in an entirely different way by the editor.

 

[jimbopm]

One thing you've got to remember, If we are upsetting them, we are doing a good job. Rather this than be shit again and have them patronising us again about being in shadow's and how we are loveable losers and a comedy club.

 

[SWP's back]

Sunderland were better for 60mins+

We didn't play as a team, and only won because of "individual bits of skill"

.

Sounds about right, Yaya was poor before THAT goal and the Mackems bossed the first half.

No they didn't. Not even close.

 

[alib]

The Mail covering the win superbly.........

plenty of coverage further down about Pellegrini referring to us Manchester United and of Kompany dropping the cup!!!!

wankers

 

[Lucky Toma]

When Sunderland scored I did myself find Tyler going a bit OTT, but it's just the david and goliath mentality if anything, (IMO). He jizzed his pants over Toure's goal too though, so no problem.

As the Blue who (bizarrely) went on redcafe has said, other fans think Sky are all pro us and anti them. At the end of the day though, it doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things.

Football reporting has to be set in a commercial context, and media organisations use the antipathy towards the new kid on the block to make money

Until you get that you will not appreciate that the football industry is indeed weighted against City because the owners of media capital market their product and tailor it to towards the Man Utd Bitter. Maybe in time things will change

At the moment there is a material reason behind the hostile reporting and it's no good ignoring it.

I have seen explanations from Journalists explaining that they wrote a positive write-up about City / a player, and it was presented in an entirely different way by the editor.

Very good post but no, not reporting.

 

[mac]

The Monday view on now, let's see if money is mentioned.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Not just SSnakesTV, either.

Just read the ToryGraph and the match stats:

Possession 68-32
Shots on target 6-3
Shots off target 4-2
Corners 9-7
Fouls 13-10 (doesn't include the scything tackle on Silva, nor the semi-assault perpetrated on and just over the touchline on the same player!)
Total passes 523-318
Total tackles 27-18

and,

we had three players who scored individually better than their counterpart, whilst Sunderland had SIX!

The worst players on the pitch were Vincent and Edin who scored 5. Silva was outscored by Colback 5-6, Cattermole outshone Ferny 6-8.amd the total score for Sunderland comes out at 76 whilst we were floundering with 71!

Have these people actually watched the match? Kompany 5?

Unbelievable, Jeff!

 

[Chris in London]

I don't believe there is an agenda. In fact I think the word undermines our genuine cause for anger on this issue.

I do however believe that the media in general - right across from newspaper columnists to matchday commentators - are purposely projecting back onto the football public the widespread notion that anything we achieve has been done solely through vast resources and thus is almost meaningless.
They are giving the people what they want - and saying what they probably rightly believe others are thinking - for their own ends.

Given your second sentence quoted above, when you say there is no 'agenda' in your first sentence what exactly do you mean by that?

Many people might say your second sentence is not a bad definition of what they mean when they say there IS an agenda