so this agenda thing.

[ali benarbia's studs]

SSN shows a clip of neymar speaking about his injury and the forthcoming final. a caption pops up as they do introducing him as neymar, barcalona and brazil.
the next player interviewed is aguero. now his caption just reads argentina. no mention of his club side. anyone got any idea why they would mention one players club, during a world cup, and not the other? the next guy interviewed is maxi rodriguez, yes you guess it from newels old boys and argentina. why's that then?

genuine question.

genuine question.......Why do you still bother with that crap-infested TVstation?

 

[bluenova]

I think De Niro needs to start his own TV show.

Further down the listings on satellite it's full of middle aged men and their wacko conspiracy theories.

I may be middle aged but I'm not blind,you on the other hand.........

I am quite happy to believe there are many things wrong with football - FIFA corruption, some level of match fixing, etc., but I'd be embarrassed to be arguing in public that the entire media had clubbed together to pick on my team specifically.

I understand why people believe it happens - there's bound to be a bias towards traditionally large clubs. City had a long period without success, which means there are simply more fans of other big clubs spread throughout the media, than there are City fans, and this creates a bias in favour of some other clubs.

The old Big Four still have larger fanbases than City (much larger in some cases), and so some ratings driven decisions are going to be made that will seem unfair to us. It's quite possible that if BT or Sky put out two ads, one featuring City and the other Liverpool, then the Liverpool one will be more successful. Is this the sign of an agenda, or simply a TV company wanting to get the most subscribers?

All I want is for you to ask yourself:

Do you really believe that all the TV channels, and newspapers, plus the Premier League, and the FA are able to put all their differences aside and decide that it's in their interests to attack one particular club? Do you believe that this Agenda is so detailed that it goes as far as making sure that captions on Sky are deliberately changed to attack City?

Most of these organisations have a financial incentive to promote the Premier League in a positive way. While they may promote other clubs because they get higher ratings, what possible benefit would there be in putting out negative stories, or trying to diminish the popularity of this decade's most successful English club?

 

[crystal_mais]

Not wanting to be too anal in the debate - Sky Sports news had Bill Bradshaw on the Paper review this morning. They showed the back page of Star or Express - and in his own words "Even with the sanction of FFP etc, City still find £32m to spend on a French 4th choice centre back"

He was a smug twat while saying it - maybe it was just me being grumpy at 7.40 this morning.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I think De Niro needs to start his own TV show.

Further down the listings on satellite it's full of middle aged men and their wacko conspiracy theories.

I may be middle aged but I'm not blind,you on the other hand.........

I am quite happy to believe there are many things wrong with football - FIFA corruption, some level of match fixing, etc., but I'd be embarrassed to be arguing in public that the entire media had clubbed together to pick on my team specifically.

I understand why people believe it happens - there's bound to be a bias towards traditionally large clubs. City had a long period without success, which means there are simply more fans of other big clubs spread throughout the media, than there are City fans, and this creates a bias in favour of some other clubs.

The old Big Four still have larger fanbases than City (much larger in some cases), and so some ratings driven decisions are going to be made that will seem unfair to us. It's quite possible that if BT or Sky put out two ads, one featuring City and the other Liverpool, then the Liverpool one will be more successful. Is this the sign of an agenda, or simply a TV company wanting to get the most subscribers?

All I want is for you to ask yourself:

Do you really believe that all the TV channels, and newspapers, plus the Premier League, and the FA are able to put all their differences aside and decide that it's in their interests to attack one particular club? Do you believe that this Agenda is so detailed that it goes as far as making sure that captions on Sky are deliberately changed to attack City?

Most of these organisations have a financial incentive to promote the Premier League in a positive way. While they may promote other clubs because they get higher ratings, what possible benefit would there be in putting out negative stories, or trying to diminish the popularity of this decade's most successful English club?

What possible agenda?
It's called maximising advertising revenue.
Have a pop at City and the "falsely entitled" stay watching or read the web stories and generate larger advertising revenue in clicks and viewing figures. While at the same time the City warriors pile on and disagree generating more clicks and viewing figures. No offence to the City Warriors BTW - you just don't see what the mediah is trying to do.
Just ignore it and let those with false sense of entitlement stamp their feet and squeem and squeem and squeem.
It's much more fun.

 

[Bill]

I think De Niro needs to start his own TV show.

Further down the listings on satellite it's full of middle aged men and their wacko conspiracy theories.

I may be middle aged but I'm not blind,you on the other hand.........

I am quite happy to believe there are many things wrong with football - FIFA corruption, some level of match fixing, etc., but I'd be embarrassed to be arguing in public that the entire media had clubbed together to pick on my team specifically.

I understand why people believe it happens - there's bound to be a bias towards traditionally large clubs. City had a long period without success, which means there are simply more fans of other big clubs spread throughout the media, than there are City fans, and this creates a bias in favour of some other clubs.

The old Big Four still have larger fanbases than City (much larger in some cases), and so some ratings driven decisions are going to be made that will seem unfair to us. It's quite possible that if BT or Sky put out two ads, one featuring City and the other Liverpool, then the Liverpool one will be more successful. Is this the sign of an agenda, or simply a TV company wanting to get the most subscribers?

All I want is for you to ask yourself:

Do you really believe that all the TV channels, and newspapers, plus the Premier League, and the FA are able to put all their differences aside and decide that it's in their interests to attack one particular club? Do you believe that this Agenda is so detailed that it goes as far as making sure that captions on Sky are deliberately changed to attack City?

Most of these organisations have a financial incentive to promote the Premier League in a positive way. While they may promote other clubs because they get higher ratings, what possible benefit would there be in putting out negative stories, or trying to diminish the popularity of this decade's most successful English club?

I believe that money talks. I also believe there is a total world wide agenda to keep the "darling" clubs in the money. do you think platini wants an anzi v city champions league final? do they fuck. all this co efficient shit is designed totally to protect them. ffp only came about as we got our money. Chelsea, utd and arsenal are spunking zillions on players, we get 49m. how can that be financial fair play? how? you tell me. it is an attack on our club.
if you arrived from mars and popped the tv on, or picked up a paper, you'd have no clue we were champions. no clue we have 3 players in the world cup final, not on the bench but actually in the starting 11.
SSN knew what they were doing when they left aguero's club off that caption, they clearly are pandering to the far east and the plastics that pay for their tv viewing.

me, naievly thought any given media should just report the facts, as they are, without bias or agenda. shame that sky and the rest of our media put financial gain over journalistic integrity.

 

[yeah whatever !!]

I think De Niro needs to start his own TV show.

Further down the listings on satellite it's full of middle aged men and their wacko conspiracy theories.

I may be middle aged but I'm not blind,you on the other hand.........

I am quite happy to believe there are many things wrong with football - FIFA corruption, some level of match fixing, etc., but I'd be embarrassed to be arguing in public that the entire media had clubbed together to pick on my team specifically.

I understand why people believe it happens - there's bound to be a bias towards traditionally large clubs. City had a long period without success, which means there are simply more fans of other big clubs spread throughout the media, than there are City fans, and this creates a bias in favour of some other clubs.

The old Big Four still have larger fanbases than City (much larger in some cases), and so some ratings driven decisions are going to be made that will seem unfair to us. It's quite possible that if BT or Sky put out two ads, one featuring City and the other Liverpool, then the Liverpool one will be more successful. Is this the sign of an agenda, or simply a TV company wanting to get the most subscribers?

All I want is for you to ask yourself:

Do you really believe that all the TV channels, and newspapers, plus the Premier League, and the FA are able to put all their differences aside and decide that it's in their interests to attack one particular club? Do you believe that this Agenda is so detailed that it goes as far as making sure that captions on Sky are deliberately changed to attack City?

Most of these organisations have a financial incentive to promote the Premier League in a positive way. While they may promote other clubs because they get higher ratings, what possible benefit would there be in putting out negative stories, or trying to diminish the popularity of this decade's most successful English club?

I take it you've not seen the BT advert for next season then??

 

[franksinatra]

I may be middle aged but I'm not blind,you on the other hand.........

I am quite happy to believe there are many things wrong with football - FIFA corruption, some level of match fixing, etc., but I'd be embarrassed to be arguing in public that the entire media had clubbed together to pick on my team specifically.

I understand why people believe it happens - there's bound to be a bias towards traditionally large clubs. City had a long period without success, which means there are simply more fans of other big clubs spread throughout the media, than there are City fans, and this creates a bias in favour of some other clubs.

The old Big Four still have larger fanbases than City (much larger in some cases), and so some ratings driven decisions are going to be made that will seem unfair to us. It's quite possible that if BT or Sky put out two ads, one featuring City and the other Liverpool, then the Liverpool one will be more successful. Is this the sign of an agenda, or simply a TV company wanting to get the most subscribers?

All I want is for you to ask yourself:

Do you really believe that all the TV channels, and newspapers, plus the Premier League, and the FA are able to put all their differences aside and decide that it's in their interests to attack one particular club? Do you believe that this Agenda is so detailed that it goes as far as making sure that captions on Sky are deliberately changed to attack City?

Most of these organisations have a financial incentive to promote the Premier League in a positive way. While they may promote other clubs because they get higher ratings, what possible benefit would there be in putting out negative stories, or trying to diminish the popularity of this decade's most successful English club?

I believe that money talks. I also believe there is a total world wide agenda to keep the "darling" clubs in the money. do you think platini wants an anzi v city champions league final? do they fuck. all this co efficient shit is designed totally to protect them. ffp only came about as we got our money. Chelsea, utd and arsenal are spunking zillions on players, we get 49m. how can that be financial fair play? how? you tell me. it is an attack on our club.
if you arrived from mars and popped the tv on, or picked up a paper, you'd have no clue we were champions. no clue we have 3 players in the world cup final, not on the bench but actually in the starting 11.
SSN knew what they were doing when they left aguero's club off that caption, they clearly are pandering to the far east and the plastics that pay for their tv viewing.

me, naievly thought any given media should just report the facts, as they are, without bias or agenda. shame that sky and the rest of our media put financial gain over journalistic integrity.

So not only it is a media agenda but Platini and FFP was also designed to personally attack our club? Also to further clarify Agueros club was left off the caption because of some possible consequences in the Far East?

As you raised the issues of Mars pal. Do not worry any extraterrestial visitors will not be turning the TV on arrival as they will need to purchase a telly and get a tv licence before determining who are Premier league champions. However that could be just a UK Government initiative to prevent us expanding our supporters base?

 

[Blue Hefner]

Not wanting to be too anal in the debate - Sky Sports news had Bill Bradshaw on the Paper review this morning. They showed the back page of Star or Express - and in his own words "Even with the sanction of FFP etc, City still find £32m to spend on a French 4th choice centre back"

He was a smug twat while saying it - maybe it was just me being grumpy at 7.40 this morning.

I didn't see that but those sort of statements from people in the media really annoy me. I'm not sure if its 'agenda' driven or ill-informed middle-aged men who have been doing the same job for years and become lazy. Although I don't rememeber anyone saying 'even though Utd are 400mil in debt, they still find 25+mil to but Spain's 15th choice centre-mid'!

There was someone on TS yesturday who said Rodwell should have gone elsewhere for 1st team football and that his career has 'stagnated' - they didn't mention his injuries

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There was someone on TS yesturday who said Rodwell should have gone elsewhere for 1st team football and that his career has 'stagnated' - they didn't mention his injuries

It's funny how you never hear the same plaintive cry when the subject of Wilfred Zaha (who hasn't been hampered by injuries) comes up.

 

[KiLP12]

I may be middle aged but I'm not blind,you on the other hand.........

I am quite happy to believe there are many things wrong with football - FIFA corruption, some level of match fixing, etc., but I'd be embarrassed to be arguing in public that the entire media had clubbed together to pick on my team specifically.

I understand why people believe it happens - there's bound to be a bias towards traditionally large clubs. City had a long period without success, which means there are simply more fans of other big clubs spread throughout the media, than there are City fans, and this creates a bias in favour of some other clubs.

The old Big Four still have larger fanbases than City (much larger in some cases), and so some ratings driven decisions are going to be made that will seem unfair to us. It's quite possible that if BT or Sky put out two ads, one featuring City and the other Liverpool, then the Liverpool one will be more successful. Is this the sign of an agenda, or simply a TV company wanting to get the most subscribers?

All I want is for you to ask yourself:

Do you really believe that all the TV channels, and newspapers, plus the Premier League, and the FA are able to put all their differences aside and decide that it's in their interests to attack one particular club? Do you believe that this Agenda is so detailed that it goes as far as making sure that captions on Sky are deliberately changed to attack City?

Most of these organisations have a financial incentive to promote the Premier League in a positive way. While they may promote other clubs because they get higher ratings, what possible benefit would there be in putting out negative stories, or trying to diminish the popularity of this decade's most successful English club?

I believe that money talks. I also believe there is a total world wide agenda to keep the "darling" clubs in the money. do you think platini wants an anzi v city champions league final? do they fuck. all this co efficient shit is designed totally to protect them. ffp only came about as we got our money. Chelsea, utd and arsenal are spunking zillions on players, we get 49m. how can that be financial fair play? how? you tell me. it is an attack on our club.
if you arrived from mars and popped the tv on, or picked up a paper, you'd have no clue we were champions. no clue we have 3 players in the world cup final, not on the bench but actually in the starting 11.
SSN knew what they were doing when they left aguero's club off that caption, they clearly are pandering to the far east and the plastics that pay for their tv viewing.

me, naievly thought any given media should just report the facts, as they are, without bias or agenda. shame that sky and the rest of our media put financial gain over journalistic integrity.

Well said and I this is how I feel too definitely.