so this agenda thing.

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

Just took the little one out for lunch mate and there was fuck all on the specials board abt city.

Is it any wonder?

[bigimg]http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/312497.jpg[/bigimg]

I wonder what the 'Breakfast Specials' are? Bitter lemon on toast? Un-humble pie? Condemned meat pastie? Shoulder of lamb with a chip on it?

 

[Bill]

its an agenda. like it or not its there. the sooner the mard arses on here realise the better. they wouldn't look such dickheads.

Yes, of course there is mate.
Now put the top back on the carpet glue, there's a good chap.

its empty so I've moved on to the thinners.

 

[George Hannah]

Alright - now this maybe a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, but in the interests of glasnost, compromise and appeasing the conspiracy theorists, here is my olive branch of truth and reconciliation.
Agenda - no, it doesn't exist, as it implies a pre-arranged and coordinated multi-organisation Illuminati-esque set up of epic proportions, with the goal of destroying Manchester City.
Not only is this utterly unfeasible - it is also, by any reasonable criteria, going rather badly, if last year's Premiership is any yardstick.
Bias - well, yes - this probably does exists because, (and I know this will be hard to accept for some folk), not everybody supports Manchester City.
I know, I know - it's unfathomable, but some folks in the sports media actually support other teams.
This, along with the Sky 'loyalty' to their traditional cash cow big four, which Chris alluded to earlier, probably explains why not every article in the Daily Fail, or headline story on Sky Sports News is praising us to the heavens.
Many journalists are lazy - many don't like City's arrival at the top table - many have allegiances to other clubs.
This may result in bias or disproportionate representation in their tabloid chip wrappers, but it is proof only of possible bias, not a definite agenda, because these folk are simply far too thick to orchestrate such a conspiracy, and don't really give a flying fuck who wins the premiership just as long as scribbling a few paragraphs of bollocks about it pays for their bar tab.
So some folk are biased, but there is no agenda.
I know this will be akin to telling the believers that there is no tooth fairy, but they have to find out sooner or later.

Excellent post.

However, I'm not sure that I agree that the semantic distinction between "agenda" and "bias" makes them mutually exclusive. The OED defines "agenda" as "the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group" and "bias" as "Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair".

My argument would be that a collective or even individual bias in favour of certain clubs means that there is a collective, even if not specifically agreed, or individual underlying intention to promote those clubs at the expense of others.

In the scheme of things, it shouldn't matter except that nobody would deny the power of advertising and propaganda. This constant drip, drip of negative publicity, at the very least, retards our progress and vice versa for the favoured clubs. This makes catching up commercially more difficult than it should be. We will prevail of course because we can invest in indirect means of promoting the club such as our overseas club projects whilst the institutionalised bias passes into history. I can't think of another club in that position.

in short: agenda = bias - Fetters and his ilk are simply mistaken in trying to stake out a definition of the former which excludes the latter

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Just took the little one out for lunch mate and there was fuck all on the specials board abt city.

Is it any wonder?

[bigimg]http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/312497.jpg[/bigimg]

I wonder what the 'Breakfast Specials' are? Bitter lemon on toast? Un-humble pie? Condemned meat pastie? Shoulder of lamb with a chip on it?

Ryan's Family Platter, Wayne's OAP Early Bird Special, Bobby's Tickled Tout - all served with a reduction of banner - and all washed down with lashings of bitter and a cheap, acerbic Scottish Whisky.

A small time club with a massive menu.

 

[mac]

There is an agenda and that is an agenda from the media nobs to be bias against us.i love all the shite they try o smear us with. Truly pathetic licking the brain dead plastic arses.

 

[remember arthur mann]

there is both.
an agenda from the powers that be to clip our wings. obvious as the nose on your face.
an agenda from the media to encourage clicks/ viewers from the plastics in the far east. lets be honest if we see a rag fest we turn it off, a million viewers gone. if the plastic rags see a blue fest 5 million turn off. now we are ripping up trees the media are losing millions ney billions if they report our success.

the bias comes from the people who are jealous, jealous they they are not us, that their team (i.e the scum) are in debt and can't buy a toure or an aguero. these people are supposed to be journalists, print the truth in a profession and honest manner. truth is they don't. they print bile and negatives only. again its there for all to see.
had talkshite printed an article with say 3 clubs that have over the years bought flops I'd accept that, but to only do city, on top of the rag love in every day speaks volumns. if that's not an agenda I don't what is. the mail, why leave the champions and serious contenders again for the title off an article about who could win the title? why do that? or is it yet again coincidence? its an agenda. like it or not its there. the sooner the mard arses on here realise the better. they wouldn't look such dickheads.

With you on this one. The same can be said of political reporting.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Alright - now this maybe a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, but in the interests of glasnost, compromise and appeasing the conspiracy theorists, here is my olive branch of truth and reconciliation.
Agenda - no, it doesn't exist, as it implies a pre-arranged and coordinated multi-organisation Illuminati-esque set up of epic proportions, with the goal of destroying Manchester City.
Not only is this utterly unfeasible - it is also, by any reasonable criteria, going rather badly, if last year's Premiership is any yardstick.
Bias - well, yes - this probably does exists because, (and I know this will be hard to accept for some folk), not everybody supports Manchester City.
I know, I know - it's unfathomable, but some folks in the sports media actually support other teams.
This, along with the Sky 'loyalty' to their traditional cash cow big four, which Chris alluded to earlier, probably explains why not every article in the Daily Fail, or headline story on Sky Sports News is praising us to the heavens.
Many journalists are lazy - many don't like City's arrival at the top table - many have allegiances to other clubs.
This may result in bias or disproportionate representation in their tabloid chip wrappers, but it is proof only of possible bias, not a definite agenda, because these folk are simply far too thick to orchestrate such a conspiracy, and don't really give a flying fuck who wins the premiership just as long as scribbling a few paragraphs of bollocks about it pays for their bar tab.
So some folk are biased, but there is no agenda.
I know this will be akin to telling the believers that there is no tooth fairy, but they have to find out sooner or later.

Excellent post.

However, I'm not sure that I agree that the semantic distinction between "agenda" and "bias" makes them mutually exclusive. The OED defines "agenda" as "the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group" and "bias" as "Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair".

My argument would be that a collective or even individual bias in favour of certain clubs means that there is a collective, even if not specifically agreed, or individual underlying intention to promote those clubs at the expense of others.

In the scheme of things, it shouldn't matter except that nobody would deny the power of advertising and propaganda. This constant drip, drip of negative publicity, at the very least, retards our progress and vice versa for the favoured clubs. This makes catching up commercially more difficult than it should be. We will prevail of course because we can invest in indirect means of promoting the club such as our overseas club projects whilst the institutionalised bias passes into history. I can't think of another club in that position.

in short: agenda = bias - Fetters and his ilk are simply mistaken in trying to stake out a definition of the former which excludes the latter

No, agenda does not = bias - they mean different things, and have different definitions, so therefore they are not the same.
I honestly can't make it any clearer than this.
They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually inclusive, which is what you are trying to assert.
I may have a ham and cheese toastie for lunch, but that doesn't mean that ham and cheese are the same - just that they are compatible within the context of my midday repast.
Actually, I have decided against the toastie, and opted for a Melton Mowbray pie with mustard instead, but my point stands.

 

[mad4city]

Excellent post.

However, I'm not sure that I agree that the semantic distinction between "agenda" and "bias" makes them mutually exclusive. The OED defines "agenda" as "the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group" and "bias" as "Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair".

My argument would be that a collective or even individual bias in favour of certain clubs means that there is a collective, even if not specifically agreed, or individual underlying intention to promote those clubs at the expense of others.

In the scheme of things, it shouldn't matter except that nobody would deny the power of advertising and propaganda. This constant drip, drip of negative publicity, at the very least, retards our progress and vice versa for the favoured clubs. This makes catching up commercially more difficult than it should be. We will prevail of course because we can invest in indirect means of promoting the club such as our overseas club projects whilst the institutionalised bias passes into history. I can't think of another club in that position.

in short: agenda = bias - Fetters and his ilk are simply mistaken in trying to stake out a definition of the former which excludes the latter

No, agenda does not = bias - they mean different things, and have different definitions, so therefore they are not the same.
I honestly can't make it any clearer than this.
They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually inclusive, which is what you are trying to assert.
I may have a ham and cheese toastie for lunch, but that doesn't mean that ham and cheese are the same - just that they are compatible within the context of my midday repast.
Actually, I have decided against the toastie, and opted for a Melton Mowbray pie with mustard instead, but my point stands.

Just a minute....









English or French mustard..?
Bear in mind my belief in the agenda hinges upon your response.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

in short: agenda = bias - Fetters and his ilk are simply mistaken in trying to stake out a definition of the former which excludes the latter

No, agenda does not = bias - they mean different things, and have different definitions, so therefore they are not the same.
I honestly can't make it any clearer than this.
They are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually inclusive, which is what you are trying to assert.
I may have a ham and cheese toastie for lunch, but that doesn't mean that ham and cheese are the same - just that they are compatible within the context of my midday repast.
Actually, I have decided against the toastie, and opted for a Melton Mowbray pie with mustard instead, but my point stands.

Just a minute....









English or French mustard..?
Bear in mind my belief in the agenda hinges upon your response.

It has to be Colman's English on a pie mate - any of that Dijon nonsense just isn't cricket.
Dijon mustard on a pork pie is the kind of underhand trick I would expect from an agenda-ist.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It an academic point, but I'm with NF on this.

For an agenda to exist there has to be a conscious agreement formed between parties, rather than just a common purpose. It is difficult to see how, in the absence of people actively conspiring together, an 'agenda' could have any substance, form or purpose, and therefore exist at all.