so this agenda thing.

[mat]

For the avoidance of doubt, Bob, I don't believe in an agenda per se, but rather an inherent bias in the media for the reasons set out by others within this thread.

On that basis, it doesn't keep me awake at night, but it is a source of some annoyance and irritation to me, much the same as someone in front of me at the checkout who hasn't got their wallet ready when it's time to pay for their shopping. I know it shouldn't get on my tits as much as it does, but there you are.

I think one thing that skeptics such as yourself fail to appreciate is just how scarred many City fans were at the response in the media, and more generally, in the 36 months following the takeover, up to the FA Cup win, I guess.

We were spoken off in entirely disrespectful terms, frequently in a wholly dishonest manner and the general tenor of what was said and written was that we didn't belong at the top of the English game. That we were imposters. Whilst that narrative has almost entirely disappeared it cannot be surprising that this has conditioned people against the way the media reports upon our club and makes people look for bias when it isn't there, or isn't there at least to any meaningful extent. This is one of the reasons why you sometimes get posts that, quite frankly, border on the absurd in the imaginings of some posters of an agenda. Like a wife who's been cheated on dozens of times, who'll always think a night out with his mates is a night in female company, anything that isn't positive towards City is seized upon by some as evidence of a concerted and enduring agenda by the press. This is an unbalanced (not in the neurotic sense) and disproportionate position to assume, but understandable nonetheless.

To my mind, for what it's worth, there is a clear bias, in very broad terms, against City in the media, in relation to the other 'established' clubs, most especially united and Liverpool, and most especially the press. united may be talked of in jocular terms when things aren't going their way, but there's a line that's never crossed with them, which doesn't apply to us. There is an almost complete absence of any scrutiny about the things said by that club and people associated with it, that we are not afforded the luxury of. Examples such as Spurs and Wolves aren't completely congruous, because they do not represent any threat to the status quo, and so are not reported with anything approaching the same scrutiny as us. In actual fact, it's not all bad news in that regard. There's a lot of 'chatter' about City and those in control of City seem content to let the press continue reporting on us in a particular way, and with some justification. It's a policy which seems to have served the club well.

So in short I think a bias exists, but I don't think it harms the club and in some respects may, perversely, assist the club in raising its profile. As a fan however, I reserve the right for that bias to annoy me and the best outlet for that annoyance is on here. I care greatly about City and I don't like it when people who represent themselves as disseminators of information, who are well paid in the process, and like to present an image of professionalism, report upon the club in a way that is tendentious, specious or dishonest.

For that reason, as well as the fact that I quite enjoy it, I'm going to continue to point out what some describe as an 'agenda' and others refer to as 'bias', but by any measure is most certainly appalling, and at times quite disgraceful, journalism.

Cockroaches.

Think you've hit nail on the head there.

 

[cibaman]

Another example in what I would consider to be this 'Agenda',

Today SSN were reporting on the racism issue we've had out in Croatia with the EDS, instead of airing City's views backing Vieira and explaining the issue in full, they instead chose to air the statement of the club accused of the racism, who have of course played it down and made it appear as if City and Vieira have completely overreacted.

Now for anyone who had no prior knowledge of this incident before viewing that piece, they would more than likely take the assumption that City have overreacted and their was no racism involved, this to me sums up the 'Agenda' quite well. We see multiple examples of similar issues in the English press all the time in relation to City.

I may be naïve but I thought the sub text to the report was "Those racists from that part of the world where there is a history of racial abuse demonstrate that they are in denial again by issuing ridiculous statement"

 

[SilverFox2]

Perhaps a bit early to get a bet on but if the bookies are making their books based on the so called informed Sports Page opinion I fancy a piece of ante post.

I trust this doesn't involve dicks through letter-boxes.

Took me a while to understand but it made me chuckle (eventually).

 

[George Hannah]

Perhaps a bit early to get a bet on but if the bookies are making their books based on the so called informed Sports Page opinion I fancy a piece of ante post.

I trust this doesn't involve dicks through letter-boxes.

Took me a while to understand but it made me chuckle (eventually).

the vulpine sense of humour is a sophisticated one ;-)

 

[Blue Is the Opposite of Blue]

Gordondaviesmoustache proving once again why he's my favourite person to talk to about this.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I trust this doesn't involve dicks through letter-boxes.

Took me a while to understand but it made me chuckle (eventually).

the vulpine sense of humour is a sophisticated one ;-)

Basil Brush is the apotheosis of comedy.

 

[George Hannah]

Took me a while to understand but it made me chuckle (eventually).

the vulpine sense of humour is a sophisticated one ;-)

Basil Brush is the apotheosis of comedy.

St Basil was an inspiration to us all

 

[Blue Mooner]

For the avoidance of doubt, Bob, I don't believe in an agenda per se, but rather an inherent bias in the media for the reasons set out by others within this thread.

On that basis, it doesn't keep me awake at night, but it is a source of some annoyance and irritation to me, much the same as someone in front of me at the checkout who hasn't got their wallet ready when it's time to pay for their shopping. I know it shouldn't get on my tits as much as it does, but there you are.

I think one thing that skeptics such as yourself fail to appreciate is just how scarred many City fans were at the response in the media, and more generally, in the 36 months following the takeover, up to the FA Cup win, I guess.

We were spoken off in entirely disrespectful terms, frequently in a wholly dishonest manner and the general tenor of what was said and written was that we didn't belong at the top of the English game. That we were imposters. Whilst that narrative has almost entirely disappeared it cannot be surprising that this has conditioned people against the way the media reports upon our club and makes people look for bias when it isn't there, or isn't there at least to any meaningful extent. This is one of the reasons why you sometimes get posts that, quite frankly, border on the absurd in the imaginings of some posters of an agenda. Like a wife who's been cheated on dozens of times, who'll always think a night out with his mates is a night in female company, anything that isn't positive towards City is seized upon by some as evidence of a concerted and enduring agenda by the press. This is an unbalanced (not in the neurotic sense) and disproportionate position to assume, but understandable nonetheless.

To my mind, for what it's worth, there is a clear bias, in very broad terms, against City in the media, in relation to the other 'established' clubs, most especially united and Liverpool, and most especially the press. united may be talked of in jocular terms when things aren't going their way, but there's a line that's never crossed with them, which doesn't apply to us. There is an almost complete absence of any scrutiny about the things said by that club and people associated with it, that we are not afforded the luxury of. Examples such as Spurs and Wolves aren't completely congruous, because they do not represent any threat to the status quo, and so are not reported with anything approaching the same scrutiny as us. In actual fact, it's not all bad news in that regard. There's a lot of 'chatter' about City and those in control of City seem content to let the press continue reporting on us in a particular way, and with some justification. It's a policy which seems to have served the club well.

So in short I think a bias exists, but I don't think it harms the club and in some respects may, perversely, assist the club in raising its profile. As a fan however, I reserve the right for that bias to annoy me and the best outlet for that annoyance is on here. I care greatly about City and I don't like it when people who represent themselves as disseminators of information, who are well paid in the process, and like to present an image of professionalism, report upon the club in a way that is tendentious, specious or dishonest.

For that reason, as well as the fact that I quite enjoy it, I'm going to continue to point out what some describe as an 'agenda' and others refer to as 'bias', but by any measure is most certainly appalling, and at times quite disgraceful, journalism.

Cockroaches.

One of the best posts on here I have read.

Great post but it greatly underestimates the 'bias' against our club. It's been mentioned many times on here but if you want clear, unequivocal, irrefutable evidence that there is more than 'bias' against our club then FFP is the embodiment of that. I struggle to understand why Blackburns splurge of cash, or Middlesbroughs on a relative scale, and the Chelsea large scale investment failed to coin the 'ruining football' phrase that has become so often mentioned since we came into our wealth. I refuse to believe that the new legislation was not a direct response to MCFC coming into bucketloads of cash.

And what do we see today as a result of financial FAIR play? Real Madrid spending 100m on Bale, Barcelona 70m on Suarez and now Real again 70m on Rodriguez. Even Arsenal are now joining the party with vast sums now spent on Ozil and Sanchez - incidentally both more than we have spent on any player.

No, make no mistake, this is a direct agenda against our club. Even our start to the season is in my eyes designed to try and make sure we make a bad or less than average start. With strengthened Arsenal and Chelsea teams it looks a formidable start and losing both those is eminently possible, bringing out the negatives in force, doubting our summer transfer policy, pellegrini etc etc. make no mistake momentum and confidence is critical to the season.

Media bias exists, it's coming out of our televisions, newspapers and online every day, but it's much, much more than that. We as blues are right to call out the disgraceful bias, not be cow towed by those who wish to make you out to be some kind of paranoid freak. It was precisely this that let the likes of Savile, lance Armstrong get away with sh*t for far too long.

In the light of this agenda, the achievements of recent years are even more incredible and I hope we can continue to achieve in spite of this institutionalised bias, but I fear that the b*stards will ultimately retain the status quo and our success will be but a fleeting passage in football history.

No doubt we have great owners and we are destined to remain one of the top clubs but I fear glory on a Liverpool or Rags scale will be impossible when faced with the continued manipulated obstacles put in our path.

 

[Chris in London]

You think what appears on SSN is possibly not the product of an editorial decision?
How novel.

I gave the only two logical possibilities. If you think one can be excluded then that only leaves the other.
Try reading what I wrote again, you might get the point.
That would be novel.

As I pointed out on this thread many hours ago, SSN ignored the City statement and only reported the Croatian club one which attributed he abandonment of the match to a reason known only to Vieira.
Watching your contortions as you try to escape the absurdity of your position is reminiscent of incompetent lobbyist Wesley Mouch in the novel by Ayn Rand.

Do be good enough to explain what you think is my position, and then explain why it is absurd.

I only used 27 words so you shouldn't find it that hard.



GDM, you antediluvian rapscallion, behave.

 

[BlueHalli]

For some reason i popped ssn on when i got home from work . It was basically 45 mins of constant rag shit . Couldnt believe it . Just one pointless reason after another to mention them .

Look at the prem classics games they show. Pretty much half of them involve the rags. Its a fookin pisstake.

 

[Bill]

For some reason i popped ssn on when i got home from work . It was basically 45 mins of constant rag shit . Couldnt believe it . Just one pointless reason after another to mention them .

Look at the prem classics games they show. Pretty much half of them involve the rags. Its a fookin pisstake.

and still some think its coincidence.

 

[SilverFox2]

Took me a while to understand but it made me chuckle (eventually).

the vulpine sense of humour is a sophisticated one ;-)

Basil Brush is the apotheosis of comedy.

I now realise I have much to learn from this forum.

I have never used google so much and I never thought my French - English Dictionary would ever see the light of day again.
Incidentally when did Basil Brush become female ?

 

[Rammyblues]

Blatantly obvious.

 

[ballinio]

just had my monthly bath so I put Talksport on, it really is incredible . The topic was Van Gaals style of management, how he would do etc ...."lets look at the other contenders, Morinho, wenger, Rodgers & Martinez ". Alvin Martin managed the longest period of Man Utd cocksucking I have ever heard, plenty of Sir Alex`s thrown in, even managed get Whiteside & the great Jesper Olsen into the conversation . " After the break we take a look at Pottechino & how he`ll do ".
Subject 2 : Do clubs travel to much in the close season, " at the moment we have Utd , Liverpool, AC Milan & others in the USA..... yes that was our mention `OTHERS`.
Its clear to me that they've tried ridiculing us, slagging us , now comes plan C , ignoring us. The title 2013/14 is like one of those ghost ships, its like it never happened.

 

[Bill]

just had my monthly bath so I put Talksport on, it really is incredible . The topic was Van Gaals style of management, how he would do etc ...."lets look at the other contenders, Morinho, wenger, Rodgers & Martinez ". Alvin Martin managed the longest period of Man Utd cocksucking I have ever heard, plenty of Sir Alex`s thrown in, even managed get Whiteside & the great Jesper Olsen into the conversation . " After the break we take a look at Pottechino & how he`ll do ".
Subject 2 : Do clubs travel to much in the close season, " at the moment we have Utd , Liverpool, AC Milan & others in the USA..... yes that was our mention `OTHERS`.
Its clear to me that they've tried ridiculing us, slagging us , now comes plan C , ignoring us. The title 2013/14 is like one of those ghost ships, its like it never happened.

and still some think its coincidence.

 

[Puppet Master Silva]

just had my monthly bath so I put Talksport on, it really is incredible . The topic was Van Gaals style of management, how he would do etc ...."lets look at the other contenders, Morinho, wenger, Rodgers & Martinez ". Alvin Martin managed the longest period of Man Utd cocksucking I have ever heard, plenty of Sir Alex`s thrown in, even managed get Whiteside & the great Jesper Olsen into the conversation . " After the break we take a look at Pottechino & how he`ll do ".
Subject 2 : Do clubs travel to much in the close season, " at the moment we have Utd , Liverpool, AC Milan & others in the USA..... yes that was our mention `OTHERS`.
Its clear to me that they've tried ridiculing us, slagging us , now comes plan C , ignoring us. The title 2013/14 is like one of those ghost ships, its like it never happened.

and still some aren't completely insane.

 

[George Hannah]

Do be good enough to explain what you think is my position, and then explain why it is absurd.

I only used 27 words so you shouldn't find it that hard.....

First, a word of friendly advice, avoid unnecessary spacing between your sentences, it makes you look slow-witted and second, a piece of even friendlier advice, don't rely on other people to explain your own words to you - it will inevitably lead to disappointment.

 

[Bill]

Do be good enough to explain what you think is my position, and then explain why it is absurd.

I only used 27 words so you shouldn't find it that hard.....

First, a word of friendly advice, avoid unnecessary spacing between your sentences, it makes you look slow-witted and second, a piece of even friendlier advice, don't rely on other people to explain your own words to you - it will inevitably lead to disappointment.

this'll be good.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Do be good enough to explain what you think is my position, and then explain why it is absurd.

I only used 27 words so you shouldn't find it that hard.....

First, a word of friendly advice, avoid unnecessary spacing between your sentences, it makes you look slow-witted and second, a piece of even friendlier advice, don't rely on other people to explain your own words to you - it will inevitably lead to disappointment.

this'll be good.

Shortly I'll be the only intellectual on the board that GH hasn't alienated.

 

[BlueAnorak]

For the avoidance of doubt, Bob, I don't believe in an agenda per se, but rather an inherent bias in the media for the reasons set out by others within this thread.

On that basis, it doesn't keep me awake at night, but it is a source of some annoyance and irritation to me, much the same as someone in front of me at the checkout who hasn't got their wallet ready when it's time to pay for their shopping. I know it shouldn't get on my tits as much as it does, but there you are.

I think one thing that skeptics such as yourself fail to appreciate is just how scarred many City fans were at the response in the media, and more generally, in the 36 months following the takeover, up to the FA Cup win, I guess.

We were spoken off in entirely disrespectful terms, frequently in a wholly dishonest manner and the general tenor of what was said and written was that we didn't belong at the top of the English game. That we were imposters. Whilst that narrative has almost entirely disappeared it cannot be surprising that this has conditioned people against the way the media reports upon our club and makes people look for bias when it isn't there, or isn't there at least to any meaningful extent. This is one of the reasons why you sometimes get posts that, quite frankly, border on the absurd in the imaginings of some posters of an agenda. Like a wife who's been cheated on dozens of times, who'll always think a night out with his mates is a night in female company, anything that isn't positive towards City is seized upon by some as evidence of a concerted and enduring agenda by the press. This is an unbalanced (not in the neurotic sense) and disproportionate position to assume, but understandable nonetheless.

To my mind, for what it's worth, there is a clear bias, in very broad terms, against City in the media, in relation to the other 'established' clubs, most especially united and Liverpool, and most especially the press. united may be talked of in jocular terms when things aren't going their way, but there's a line that's never crossed with them, which doesn't apply to us. There is an almost complete absence of any scrutiny about the things said by that club and people associated with it, that we are not afforded the luxury of. Examples such as Spurs and Wolves aren't completely congruous, because they do not represent any threat to the status quo, and so are not reported with anything approaching the same scrutiny as us. In actual fact, it's not all bad news in that regard. There's a lot of 'chatter' about City and those in control of City seem content to let the press continue reporting on us in a particular way, and with some justification. It's a policy which seems to have served the club well.

So in short I think a bias exists, but I don't think it harms the club and in some respects may, perversely, assist the club in raising its profile. As a fan however, I reserve the right for that bias to annoy me and the best outlet for that annoyance is on here. I care greatly about City and I don't like it when people who represent themselves as disseminators of information, who are well paid in the process, and like to present an image of professionalism, report upon the club in a way that is tendentious, specious or dishonest.

For that reason, as well as the fact that I quite enjoy it, I'm going to continue to point out what some describe as an 'agenda' and others refer to as 'bias', but by any measure is most certainly appalling, and at times quite disgraceful, journalism.

Cockroaches.

One of the best posts on here I have read.

True. It is a great post.

The journos who support London clubs the rags and red dippers have got together to deliver a constant consistent message. It helps that it delivers click advertising revenue as the fans of all these clubs just lap it up.