so this agenda thing.

[George Hannah]

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.

I'd have gone for the toastie. The words Agenda & Bias are interchangeable as used in this thread context. The meaning is that of their combined OED definitions:

The underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group where they have an Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.

 

[mad4city]

You sir, are a barbarian.
The correct answer is brown sauce.
And well you know it!

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

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.

I'd have gone for the toastie. The words Agenda & Bias are interchangeable as used in this thread context. The meaning is that of their combined OED definitions:

The underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group where they have an Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.

You still think cricket has batters rather than batsmen - you are beyond help of any sort.

 

[George Hannah]

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.

it's a good job you neither of you are academics then. I have an agenda and I am indivisible.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The OED is the last refuge of a floundering argument.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

The OED is the last refuge of a floundering argument.

...unless you wish to define the word 'floundering'.
I've not had flounders for ages - I may see if my fishmonger can get hold of some for Friday's tea, like the good lapsed Catholic atheist I am.

 

[George Hannah]

The OED is the last refuge of a floundering argument.

possibly so, but where common sense and logic fail it is difficult to see where else to refer those in persistent error.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I am indivisible.

You are certainly well past your prime.

 

[mad4city]

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.

I'd agree with this, generally speaking. Although it could be argued that the infamous letter on Arsenal headed paper, urging the introduction of ffp in the premier league pointee to prior meetings tharvdid constitute just such a conscious agreement.
Overall, I think it just suits a lot of diverse parties to keep little old City where they feel we belong. It's no surprise and is actually a sign of how much theyvfear us. I bet if Schweppes introduced a new Cola, Pepsi and Coke would soon find common ground.

 

[Chippy_boy]

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.

I'm in the "no agenda" camp, but just to point out, you don't need a group of people for an agenda. A person singular can have an agenda.

For me the difference is that bias might introduce non-objective reporting and portraying things in an adverse light as a result. An agenda is about deliberately misreporting, probably over a period of time in order to achieve a desired end result or objective. I do think there are probably a few sad individuals in the press who actually are up to that. But I don't for one moment think they are coordinated and following some central master plan. They are just rags who hate us. I'd probably do the same to them if I was a reporter. Actually that last part is probably not true. In fact I have even stated I like Gary Neville these days, god forgive me.