so this agenda thing.

[Pigeonho]

Missus had one of these 'good morning uk' programs on this morn . One of the pratts (the annoyin mixed race one with a face thats beggin to be punched) was doin a pre season update report . Where was he !? Outside the fookin swamp .

Why!? Why was he stood outside a stadium where the team that plays there pretty much finished midtable ?. I just think it would make more sence to take the short trip into manchester and stand outside the home of the champions !.

I didnt watch.it all but would id prob be fooling myself that he popped in to manc and visited the home of the champions later on ?.

Probably because they open the season at home v Swansea and most sports reporters are there already.

What difference should that make !. Its notlike they play today and this is some presenter from a morning show .

I wonder where he would be if the opening game was something like palace v swansea ?.

But it's not though is it? It's tomorrow lunch time at old Trafford. That aside though, united and what has happened to them this summer and what their aims are will be more news worthy than us defending the title that's already ours.

 

[BlueHalli]

What, you mean like the one they do on every club at the side of the screen on a daily basis?

No.

Ah, would that one not suffice in the argument you're trying to make?
Deep down you know that Sky not stating in that particular bulletin what the Garcia fee was has absolutely zero effect on anything.

Im talkin about the one where they show a table of the biggest net spenders. The one they seem to show every five mins when we're toppin it.

 

[SilverFox2]

Bias? Certainly. Industry-wide agenda? Nah.

Any media company without an Agenda and a method to carry it out ought to consider whether it wants to succeed in the business.
Possibly something like this:-

Agenda:
To increase their circulation and thereby revenue income.

Bias:
Express views that reinforce the bias that the majority of your potential customers already have.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

So now it's 'let's hypothetically speculate on just where a reporter would or would not be to report or not report on a fixture which doesn't actually exist anyway?'
And this is somehow supposed to prove the existence of an agenda?
I'm out of here, because this is sailing into previously uncharted waters of insanity.

 

[Pigeonho]

No.

Ah, would that one not suffice in the argument you're trying to make?
Deep down you know that Sky not stating in that particular bulletin what the Garcia fee was has absolutely zero effect on anything.

Im talkin about the one where they show a table of the biggest net spenders. The one they seem to show every five mins when we're toppin it.

Like they did when we were spending huge amounts in the early days? Well that is there to be reported, as it would if a club this summer had spent several hundred million pounds on world class players. Nobody has though, so there's no audience to report it to as there's nothing to report. Someone sitting there reading how X club has recouped X amount for a player is and never will be news compared to X club spending 200m on several players.
You are looking too hard.

 

[BlueHalli]

Probably because they open the season at home v Swansea and most sports reporters are there already.

What difference should that make !. Its notlike they play today and this is some presenter from a morning show .

I wonder where he would be if the opening game was something like palace v swansea ?.

But it's not though is it? It's tomorrow lunch time at old Trafford. That aside though, united and what has happened to them this summer and what their aims are will be more news worthy than us defending the title that's already ours.

Surely it would make better reporting to go to our place with thr opening line of something like "morning, today im giving to a pre season teaser and where else better to report from than the home of the current champions". Or something along those lines. The sort of thing we would hear if the rags had won it.

 

[sir baconface]

Malcolm X once said; “The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

This is true of gutter press and the old traditional broadsheets. Across the board they have their ways of doing things but they only sometimes report the truth. They may report facts, but not the truth of the underlying story behind the facts. Switch on the RT news channel and see them openly harrying the Israeli Foreign Minister live on air on a video call over their war crimes and violation of human rights, and you think "fuck me, the BBC don't present news like this!" and the BBC is supposed to be our pillar for quality news reporting in this country.

I work with a man from Zimbabwe, and he says that the Western media is a farce and often a disgrace that do not report truths and portray African countries in completely the wrong manner. And this is an intelligent man who wouldn't go near a tabloid newspaper.

But in 2014 i think the masses are far more media savvy than back when Malcolm X said that. I think society sees through journalism. I apologise if my views grate a bit with you, but i just think traditional journalism is false and with today's world of the internet a redundant job because you can find out the truth on many things yourself. Any Tom Dick and Harry can post in a forum or on a blogging site and in one sentence completely rub out 100% of that day's journalism falsities.

or make up their own.
the problem with the internet is how do you separate the truth from the lies?
the simple answer is you cant.
all the internet does is replace a limited number of untrustworthy news sources with an infinate number of untrustworthy news sources. I am not sure thats an improvement.

NUJ code of conduct

A journalist:

At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.
Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair.
Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies.
Differentiates between fact and opinion.
Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means.
Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.
Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work.
Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information and takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge.
Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed.
A journalist shall normally seek the consent of an appropriate adult when interviewing or photographing a child for a story about her/his welfare.
Avoids plagiarism.
The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the NUJ code of code.

The NUJ will support journalists who act according to the code.

NUJ code of conduct was updated in 2011.

Not sure what point this post is making.

 

[Pigeonho]

What difference should that make !. Its notlike they play today and this is some presenter from a morning show .

I wonder where he would be if the opening game was something like palace v swansea ?.

But it's not though is it? It's tomorrow lunch time at old Trafford. That aside though, united and what has happened to them this summer and what their aims are will be more news worthy than us defending the title that's already ours.

Surely it would make better reporting to go to our place with thr opening line of something like "morning, today im giving to a pre season teaser and where else better to report from than the home of the current champions". Or something along those lines. The sort of thing we would hear if the rags had won it.

Why would it be better? One thing that is for concrete certainty is that there are more united fans out there who will tune into a sports bulletin outside old Trafford than there are city fans if it was the other way round. That's just the way it is. I would hazard a guess though that if it was Moyes still in charge, that no signings had been made and that there was no challenge ahead, the report would be from somewhere else - that of course if the first game of the season wasn't there. That's not the case though. They have a quality manager in place, a couple of signings and more importantly expectancy to do well. They are also chasing their city rivals for the league with more chance than they had last year of defending it. Whether you like it or not that is more newsworthy to the plastic viewer or neutral than it would be to broadcast from city's stadium, a club expected to retain the trophy.
None of that matters though, as the simple reason why has already been stated. The first match of the new season starts at old Trafford tomorrow dinner.

 

[BlueHalli]

So now it's 'let's hypothetically speculate on just where a reporter would or would not be to report or not report on a fixture which doesn't actually exist anyway?'
And this is somehow supposed to prove the existence of an agenda?
I'm out of here, because this is sailing into previously uncharted waters of insanity.

Its totally valid. Just another attempt to throw their brand in our faces .

Agree or disagree with that is fine but i think its those that have been fighting against those that can see an agender that have become deluded.

 

[willipp]

Maybe im becoming over sensitive to this shit but sky are pissing me off. Javi has gone to Zenit which they are reporting, along with a host of other transfers. Every other transfer gives a fee or undisclosed where as Javis doesnt mention any figure. Its been widely reported 12/13 million, so why are Sky excluding any details. Only one reason and thats beacuse they dont want people thinking we are actually raising money from selling players.

Just say for one second there is just a grain of truth in that, and that when the transfer went through the editor at Sky Sports said:
'Right lads and lasses, don't report on the fee City got for Garcia'
Then Natalie Sawyer had the utter front to say:
'Why the fuck not, boss?'
And the editors reply was:
'Because I don't want Mr A Smith in his chair there in *insert random village here* to know that those c**ts are making any money'

Why would that bother you? You know what we made, as do, (more importantly), the money men at the club. So why would you care so much to the point it's 'pissing me off'?

It bothers me because the club i love get treated differently than pretty much any other club. Maybe it shouldn't piss me off, but it clearly happens in the media and for some crazy reason some City fans find that frustrating.

 

[Pigeonho]

Maybe im becoming over sensitive to this shit but sky are pissing me off. Javi has gone to Zenit which they are reporting, along with a host of other transfers. Every other transfer gives a fee or undisclosed where as Javis doesnt mention any figure. Its been widely reported 12/13 million, so why are Sky excluding any details. Only one reason and thats beacuse they dont want people thinking we are actually raising money from selling players.

Just say for one second there is just a grain of truth in that, and that when the transfer went through the editor at Sky Sports said:
'Right lads and lasses, don't report on the fee City got for Garcia'
Then Natalie Sawyer had the utter front to say:
'Why the fuck not, boss?'
And the editors reply was:
'Because I don't want Mr A Smith in his chair there in *insert random village here* to know that those c**ts are making any money'

Why would that bother you? You know what we made, as do, (more importantly), the money men at the club. So why would you care so much to the point it's 'pissing me off'?

It bothers me because the club i love get treated differently than pretty much any other club. Maybe it shouldn't piss me off, but it clearly happens in the media and for some crazy reason some City fans find that frustrating.

When you were kids, did you get annoyed if someone got more jelly babies in their sweety tin than you did? I can imagine that is annoying, but I can't imagine for one second how sky not saying in a bulletin how much we got for a player is annoying.

 

[willipp]

Just say for one second there is just a grain of truth in that, and that when the transfer went through the editor at Sky Sports said:
'Right lads and lasses, don't report on the fee City got for Garcia'
Then Natalie Sawyer had the utter front to say:
'Why the fuck not, boss?'
And the editors reply was:
'Because I don't want Mr A Smith in his chair there in *insert random village here* to know that those c**ts are making any money'

Why would that bother you? You know what we made, as do, (more importantly), the money men at the club. So why would you care so much to the point it's 'pissing me off'?

It bothers me because the club i love get treated differently than pretty much any other club. Maybe it shouldn't piss me off, but it clearly happens in the media and for some crazy reason some City fans find that frustrating.

When you were kids, did you get annoyed if someone got more jelly babies in their sweety tin than you did? I can imagine that is annoying, but I can't imagine for one second how sky not saying in a bulletin how much we got for a player is annoying.

Didnt eat Jelly babies, i much preferred coltsfoot rock. I think probably its more of a culmination of just feeling that media constantly piss on our chips. I know it shouldn't really bother me, but take the new contracts signed by Silva, Vinnie and Kun. For any other club that would of been lorded in the media. However for us, every story ive read is based on the money it will cost us. No great articles about what those 3 bring to the PL and how fantastic it is for the PL to keep stars like them here long term.

 

[Burtonblue]

Daily mirror reporting "new big money contracts" for Edin and Joe.
Completely missing the fact Aguero and probably they too taking pay cuts.
What agenda?

 

[Pigeonho]

It bothers me because the club i love get treated differently than pretty much any other club. Maybe it shouldn't piss me off, but it clearly happens in the media and for some crazy reason some City fans find that frustrating.

When you were kids, did you get annoyed if someone got more jelly babies in their sweety tin than you did? I can imagine that is annoying, but I can't imagine for one second how sky not saying in a bulletin how much we got for a player is annoying.

Didnt eat Jelly babies, i much preferred coltsfoot rock. I think probably its more of a culmination of just feeling that media constantly piss on our chips. I know it shouldn't really bother me, but take the new contracts signed by Silva, Vinnie and Kun. For any other club that would of been lorded in the media. However for us, every story ive read is based on the money it will cost us. No great articles about what those 3 bring to the PL and how fantastic it is for the PL to keep stars like them here long term.

I've not seen one negative article about the contracts, I've also not seen any positive ones. I have however seen articles that have reported on what we've done - extend the contracts of key players for lengthy periods. You see for anyone other than city fans there are no positives on those deals, or negatives for that matter. They are simply stories to be reported on, which is what they've done. When Rooney signed his 300k a week deal it was the same thing. Positives for united fans but not much else. If you think 'splash the cash' is a negative, as many seem to think it is on that headline a few pages back, well i presume then you think arsenal fans must think the same headline was a negative when it was used for their purchase of that kid from barca, who's name escapes me for some reason. I've seen it used especially in liverpool case this ore season, as splashing the cash is what they've done. The headline of city spend 175m grabs the person looking at it, then the sub headline of 'invests 175m' is what is actually the story.
There aren't any negatives been printed about our recent dealings, just like there aren't any negatives in sky not stating how much we got for Garcia in that particular bulletin. From what I can see, all this nonsense is about how it looks to other people, well what does it matter what someone else thinks? The irony of that is that people moan about how much united are talked about and how nauseating it is, when Infact they seem to want the exact same thing for us. It's bizarre.

 

[PistonBlue]

I don't know if there is an agenda, or if agenda is even the correct word, but I do know that media wide more often than not any story surrounding City is done so with a negative spin.

 

[Deleted member 58678]

Wow, £175m. :-)

Wow we must be loaded. I mean that's what, 175/4 x 7 = £300 million a week!!! Makes Rooney's £300k a week seem pathetic eh?

Moronic headline.

The last bullet point is hilarious.

Yes he has been repeatedly linked with Barcelona and Real Madrid in the past. By the likes of you, you fucking cockroach.

And to a fair few headlines in Spain too. Plus i see this all as a positive anyway. It showing us to be a powerful club who can hold off the likes of the most successful club in the last decade, and the most successful club of all time and current best side in the world.

The whole spending spree stuff in the media always makes me feel good as it shows us in a powerful position. Other players and potential new sponsors may look at that and think "fuck me, i want a piece of that!"

 

[Deleted member 58678]

Maybe im becoming over sensitive to this shit but sky are pissing me off. Javi has gone to Zenit which they are reporting, along with a host of other transfers. Every other transfer gives a fee or undisclosed where as Javis doesnt mention any figure. Its been widely reported 12/13 million, so why are Sky excluding any details. Only one reason and thats beacuse they dont want people thinking we are actually raising money from selling players.

Just say for one second there is just a grain of truth in that, and that when the transfer went through the editor at Sky Sports said:
'Right lads and lasses, don't report on the fee City got for Garcia'
Then Natalie Sawyer had the utter front to say:
'Why the fuck not, boss?'
And the editors reply was:
'Because I don't want Mr A Smith in his chair there in *insert random village here* to know that those c**ts are making any money'

Why would that bother you? You know what we made, as do, (more importantly), the money men at the club. So why would you care so much to the point it's 'pissing me off'?

It bothers me because the club i love get treated differently than pretty much any other club. Maybe it shouldn't piss me off, but it clearly happens in the media and for some crazy reason some City fans find that frustrating.

We aren't lambasted half as much as Arsenal are. Not anymore anyway. We were when the Sheikh first came to us up until about when we won the FA Cup, then it died down. Arsenal get it fucking big time from the media. Sometimes i actually feel half bad for the Arsenal fans and Wenger because of the shit they get - and i fucking hate Arsenal!

Saying that, at the same time we probably get slightly less praise from the media as Arsenal do too. Arsenal seem to be in the news every couple of hours, with extremes of down right bullying to arse licking and not really much in between.

We get the odd snide comments here and there, and only the odd bit of smoke blown up our arse. Arsenal get it far worse (and admittedly better!).

 

[Burtonblue]

I don't know if there is an agenda, or if agenda is even the correct word, but I do know that media wide more often than not any story surrounding City is done so with a negative spin.

Bang on.
Players wanting to extend contracts being made to look bad even when on reduced wages!
All this just makes it more enjoyable when we win. It does feel like it's us against the rest of the world sometimes...

 

[willipp]

When you were kids, did you get annoyed if someone got more jelly babies in their sweety tin than you did? I can imagine that is annoying, but I can't imagine for one second how sky not saying in a bulletin how much we got for a player is annoying.

Didnt eat Jelly babies, i much preferred coltsfoot rock. I think probably its more of a culmination of just feeling that media constantly piss on our chips. I know it shouldn't really bother me, but take the new contracts signed by Silva, Vinnie and Kun. For any other club that would of been lorded in the media. However for us, every story ive read is based on the money it will cost us. No great articles about what those 3 bring to the PL and how fantastic it is for the PL to keep stars like them here long term.

I've not seen one negative article about the contracts, I've also not seen any positive ones. I have however seen articles that have reported on what we've done - extend the contracts of key players for lengthy periods. You see for anyone other than city fans there are no positives on those deals, or negatives for that matter. They are simply stories to be reported on, which is what they've done. When Rooney signed his 300k a week deal it was the same thing. Positives for united fans but not much else. If you think 'splash the cash' is a negative, as many seem to think it is on that headline a few pages back, well i presume then you think arsenal fans must think the same headline was a negative when it was used for their purchase of that kid from barca, who's name escapes me for some reason. I've seen it used especially in liverpool case this ore season, as splashing the cash is what they've done. The headline of city spend 175m grabs the person looking at it, then the sub headline of 'invests 175m' is what is actually the story.
There aren't any negatives been printed about our recent dealings, just like there aren't any negatives in sky not stating how much we got for Garcia in that particular bulletin. From what I can see, all this nonsense is about how it looks to other people, well what does it matter what someone else thinks? The irony of that is that people moan about how much united are talked about and how nauseating it is, when Infact they seem to want the exact same thing for us. It's bizarre.

I guess it depends on how you perceive what they are writing. Take the mail article that people have been discussing. City spend 175 million in 4 days, City splash the cash, British record transfer for defender, Aguero linked with Barca and Real. Well lets look at that in reality. Of that 175 million, approx £120 million is wages to existing players. For Silva, VK and Kun have those players got pay rises? I dont think they have, or if so very little. So really we have only spent 32 million in 4 days plus Mangalas wages in the future. Those wages are already being paid today pretty much so why make a huge headline out that. Are there huge headlines that Liverpool have splashed probably 300 million on new players if you include wages? I haven't seen anything and maybe im wrong, but i doubt it.

Its not that i want articles on Liverpool or United slagging them off cause i really couldnt care less about them. However, what i want is fair reporting on City. Maybe were getting that and i just have tinted specs on, but i do struggle to believe that with the articles in the press i see and the reporting on SSN.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I have to say, Pige is making a pretty feeble effort of staying out of this thread.