so this agenda thing.

[George Hannah]

Sky Sports vs BT Sport[:
Manchester United live on TV five times while neighbours City are on just three..
Sky Sports will show 16 games live on television between December 2 and New Year's Day compared to nine on broadcast rivals BT Sports
Manchester United are on TV five times during Christmas period, while neighbours City find themselves on the box on just three occasions

if it wasn't for the derby it would have been 6-2 - shameful

 

[tonea2003]

Sky Sports vs BT Sport[:
Manchester United live on TV five times while neighbours City are on just three..
Sky Sports will show 16 games live on television between December 2 and New Year's Day compared to nine on broadcast rivals BT Sports
Manchester United are on TV five times during Christmas period, while neighbours City find themselves on the box on just three occasions

if it wasn't for the derby it would have been 6-2 - shameful

viewing figures

 

[SilverFox2]

Sky Sports vs BT Sport[:
Manchester United live on TV five times while neighbours City are on just three..
Sky Sports will show 16 games live on television between December 2 and New Year's Day compared to nine on broadcast rivals BT Sports
Manchester United are on TV five times during Christmas period, while neighbours City find themselves on the box on just three occasions

if it wasn't for the derby it would have been 6-2 - shameful

viewing figures

It looks to me as though even the most ardent supporters of the 'Agenda' theory have moderated their claims to mean exactly 'viewing figures' or 'circulation targets'.

As expected, examples of what is commercially obvious continue to be posted.

Harmless really and a way to get the City point of view over in the absence of a majority of City supporters in the national media vehicles.

 

[George Hannah]

if it wasn't for the derby it would have been 6-2 - shameful

viewing figures

It looks to me as though even the most ardent supporters of the 'Agenda' theory have moderated their claims to mean exactly 'viewing figures' or 'circulation targets'.

As expected, examples of what is commercially obvious continue to be posted.

Harmless really and a way to get the City point of view over in the absence of a majority of City supporters in the national media vehicles.

Chasing bigger viewing figures and aiming at high circulation targets is standard and entirely proper practice for broadcasters and newspapers. They would be working against their commercial interests to do otherwise. What is unfair and biased is to lie, smear and report negatively about City because we threaten their priority markets.

 

[lindy64]

Reading the papers this morning, you would think little old City had been shafted again, what with five teams being tv more during December.
I suspect however that when the City management saw the revised fixture list, there was nothing but smiles.
Yes it's great to bring in TV revenue but it's dear more important that we win games and that schedule does us no harm at all.

 

[George Hannah]

Reading the papers this morning, you would think little old City had been shafted again, what with five teams being tv more during December.
I suspect however that when the City management saw the revised fixture list, there was nothing but smiles.
Yes it's great to bring in TV revenue but it's dear more important that we win games and that schedule does us no harm at all.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW3DnN2zLKQ[/video]

 

[sir baconface]

Sky Sports vs BT Sport[:
Manchester United live on TV five times while neighbours City are on just three..
Sky Sports will show 16 games live on television between December 2 and New Year's Day compared to nine on broadcast rivals BT Sports
Manchester United are on TV five times during Christmas period, while neighbours City find themselves on the box on just three occasions

if it wasn't for the derby it would have been 6-2 - shameful

More opportunity to study our big title rivals. They're in fourth place now, doncha know?

 

[SilverFox2]

viewing figures

It looks to me as though even the most ardent supporters of the 'Agenda' theory have moderated their claims to mean exactly 'viewing figures' or 'circulation targets'.

As expected, examples of what is commercially obvious continue to be posted.

Harmless really and a way to get the City point of view over in the absence of a majority of City supporters in the national media vehicles.

Chasing bigger viewing figures and aiming at high circulation targets is standard and entirely proper practice for broadcasters and newspapers. They would be working against their commercial interests to do otherwise. What is unfair and biased is to lie, smear and report negatively about City because we threaten their priority markets.

I agree George.

I'm not in any way disputing your right to put over the City point of view.
Unfortunately that is the way that they have always worked irrespective of the subject. They are simply extending their normal practice to tell half truths and often lies into the sports pages so that they can appeal to the majority.
But you know that already don't you.

''Never let the truth get in the way of a good story'' has long been the ethics that continue in that branch of industry as is evidenced by the many libel cases they have to defend against.

 

[tonea2003]

It looks to me as though even the most ardent supporters of the 'Agenda' theory have moderated their claims to mean exactly 'viewing figures' or 'circulation targets'.

As expected, examples of what is commercially obvious continue to be posted.

Harmless really and a way to get the City point of view over in the absence of a majority of City supporters in the national media vehicles.

Chasing bigger viewing figures and aiming at high circulation targets is standard and entirely proper practice for broadcasters and newspapers. They would be working against their commercial interests to do otherwise. What is unfair and biased is to lie, smear and report negatively about City because we threaten their priority markets.

I agree George.

I'm not in any way disputing your right to put over the City point of view.
Unfortunately that is the way that they have always worked irrespective of the subject. They are simply extending their normal practice to tell half truths and often lies into the sports pages so that they can appeal to the majority.
But you know that already don't you.

''Never let the truth get in the way of a good story'' has long been the ethics that continue in that branch of industry as is evidenced by the many libel cases they have to defend against.

the thing is though silver is that george and his ilk steadfastly ignore any positive press and thus attempt to skew the view for whatever bizarre aim.
the media bias is alive and well to which we all agree on(so why the need to harp on about it is beyond me)
but it is by no means to the extent george tries to indoctrinate us with.

 

[Plain Speaking]

What irritates me most is not unequal treatment in privately owned companies, but "institutional bias" from what should be independent organisations like the BBC.

After our performance on Saturday, when MP suggested we played our best football so far this season, the muppet Shearer, decides that rather than highlight our dominance and superb football he needs to highlight a small number of misplaced passes which happens to almost every team in football.

The BBC football website then decides this is the leading story about City, "Man City full of errors -Shearer" <a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29494526" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29494526</a>

To any person that didn't see the game, they would think we were rubbish!