so this agenda thing.

[Don Karleone]

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.

That really gets on my tits!

 

[Len Rum]

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?

No I don't believe the organisations you mention come together with an agenda against City, but you're missing the point.
The interest of these organisations are driven by the same things - Commercial which means they pander to the interests of clubs, primarily the old "Big Four", who maximise the organisation's revenues through viewing numbers and sales, AND their bias towards clubs with British players/managers/owners -we score poorly on all these fronts.Therefore the interest of these organisations happen to be best served by a common position - a pro "Big Four" and anti City stance.

 

[franksinatra]

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.

A quick search of the internet finds similar articles by Soccernews, Bleacher report. We become sensitive to articles negative to our club because we take a greater interest. That is the exact reason both City and United fans think the Manchester Evening News is biased.

Also in fairness more young players have come through at Old Trafford than the Eastlands, of late, so the problem is more acute at City. Providing further legitimacy to articles about young english players at City.

 

[wagonman]

Unbelievably I do believe that even now, today, in July 2014, there are some folk who actually watch/read/listen to "The Media".

What is even more astonishing is that they actually seem to care about the opinions and "information" spouted forth by the "reporters" whose knowledge of any subject is often surpassed by that of my speckled, germ riddled phlegm.

May I suggest, with respect, if you want information about footballing matters don't use a tea strainer and study the signs left by the damp tea leaves in your cup.

They will be closer to reality than the pontifications of the "Media" wage slaves.


JJ

 

[bluenova]

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?

No I don't believe the organisations you mention come together with an agenda against City, but you're missing the point.
The interest of these organisations are driven by the same things - Commercial which means they pander to the interests of clubs, primarily the old "Big Four", who maximise the organisation's revenues through viewing numbers and sales, AND their bias towards clubs with British players/managers/owners -we score poorly on all these fronts.Therefore the interest of these organisations happen to be best served by a common position - a pro "Big Four" and anti City stance.

I think that's very similar to the point I'm making. I just don't think it's anti-City, or anti any other club. It's much more of a bias towards the status quo - and as you said clubs with English players are always going to be more attractive in England. I suspect that in five years time we'll be part of that status quo.

It's when people start to believe that the caption guy at Sky is following orders from the great global anti-city conspiracy that I begin to laugh.

 

[Bill]

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?

No I don't believe the organisations you mention come together with an agenda against City, but you're missing the point.
The interest of these organisations are driven by the same things - Commercial which means they pander to the interests of clubs, primarily the old "Big Four", who maximise the organisation's revenues through viewing numbers and sales, AND their bias towards clubs with British players/managers/owners -we score poorly on all these fronts.Therefore the interest of these organisations happen to be best served by a common position - a pro "Big Four" and anti City stance.

I think that's very similar to the point I'm making. I just don't think it's anti-City, or anti any other club. It's much more of a bias towards the status quo - and as you said clubs with English players are always going to be more attractive in England. I suspect that in five years time we'll be part of that status quo.

It's when people start to believe that the caption guy at Sky is following orders from the great global anti-city conspiracy that I begin to laugh.

so explain it then.

3 players, one team left out of the caption.
you explain it, I'm all ears.

 

[bluenova]

No I don't believe the organisations you mention come together with an agenda against City, but you're missing the point.
The interest of these organisations are driven by the same things - Commercial which means they pander to the interests of clubs, primarily the old "Big Four", who maximise the organisation's revenues through viewing numbers and sales, AND their bias towards clubs with British players/managers/owners -we score poorly on all these fronts.Therefore the interest of these organisations happen to be best served by a common position - a pro "Big Four" and anti City stance.

I think that's very similar to the point I'm making. I just don't think it's anti-City, or anti any other club. It's much more of a bias towards the status quo - and as you said clubs with English players are always going to be more attractive in England. I suspect that in five years time we'll be part of that status quo.

It's when people start to believe that the caption guy at Sky is following orders from the great global anti-city conspiracy that I begin to laugh.

so explain it then.

3 players, one team left out of the caption.
you explain it, I'm all ears.

Simplest explanation has been given on here about three times already. Maybe Sky simply have a policy that players based overseas are identified by their club too - It might even be an informal policy that is simply passed around producers and online editors. Or maybe it's just that the person doing the captions that day, thought 'everyone knows who Aguero plays for - but the other two play abroad, so I'll put their team names in'.

If you think that's less likely than a policy which has been decided high up in Sky and is handed down to all staff along the lines of: "wherever possible, please can you minimise the exposure of Manchester City on screen. Please avoid using the phrase 'Manchester City player' either verbally or with an on-screen caption, unless the player has acted in some way negatively", then I doubt you'll ever be persuaded otherwise.

I'm surprised City fans haven't started getting a reputation on other forums as 'tin-foil hatters'. If people on here read this kind of stuff on another team's forum we'd be mocking them endlessly.

 

[Bill]

I think that's very similar to the point I'm making. I just don't think it's anti-City, or anti any other club. It's much more of a bias towards the status quo - and as you said clubs with English players are always going to be more attractive in England. I suspect that in five years time we'll be part of that status quo.

It's when people start to believe that the caption guy at Sky is following orders from the great global anti-city conspiracy that I begin to laugh.

so explain it then.

3 players, one team left out of the caption.
you explain it, I'm all ears.

Simplest explanation has been given on here about three times already. Maybe Sky simply have a policy that players based overseas are identified by their club too - It might even be an informal policy that is simply passed around producers and online editors. Or maybe it's just that the person doing the captions that day, thought 'everyone knows who Aguero plays for - but the other two play abroad, so I'll put their team names in'.

If you think that's less likely than a policy which has been decided high up in Sky and is handed down to all staff along the lines of: "wherever possible, please can you minimise the exposure of Manchester City on screen. Please avoid using the phrase 'Manchester City player' either verbally or with an on-screen caption, unless the player has acted in some way negatively", then I doubt you'll ever be persuaded otherwise.

I'm surprised City fans haven't started getting a reputation on other forums as 'tin-foil hatters'. If people on here read this kind of stuff on another team's forum we'd be mocking them endlessly.

whilst I accept you may have a point I can't actually believe a sports station viewer would have to be reminded that Neymar players for Barcelona.

 

[bluenova]

whilst I accept you may have a point I can't actually believe a sports station viewer would have to be reminded that Neymar players for Barcelona.

True, but if the policy is that overseas teams are mentioned, then it's probably just followed blindly. Easier than having to make a decision - they must be writing captions constantly, and don't want to be arguing over where to draw the line.

 

[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.

A quick search of the internet finds similar articles by Soccernews, Bleacher report. We become sensitive to articles negative to our club because we take a greater interest. That is the exact reason both City and United fans think the Manchester Evening News is biased.

Also in fairness more young players have come through at Old Trafford than the Eastlands, of late, so the problem is more acute at City. Providing further legitimacy to articles about young english players at City.

Soccernews and The Bleacher Report are hardly the vanguard of British journalism. Your reference to them to the exclusion of the usual suspects supports, not underlines, my point.