so this agenda thing.

[George Hannah]

I, of course, accept that a singular person can have an agenda, but that is not, surely, what anyone is suggesting in the context of this debate.

not so far past my prime as you it seems ;-)

At least I can take small comfort from the fact that I have much, much further to fall ;-)

if you get on my gradient you will have done well

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

Keep taking the meds, Len.
Doctors say they're pleased with your progress, and are considering giving you a room of your own, as that de niro is clearly a patient with higher support needs, and you two sharing isn't ideal.

You still fighting the corner, bud?

It's a thankless task mate, but somebody has to do it.
The latest logic from the Brains Trust is that an agenda 'is more difficult to prove'.
Which presumably explains why nobody has done it yet, because there is more chance of Lord Lucan trotting Shergar on to Glenn Miller's plane than any of that 'proof and evidence' stuff turning up anytime soon.
Ask these basket cases just who is in on this global conspiracy, and to what ends, and they haven't got a clue - it just exists, like air or dark matter.
Proof is for the non-believers.
They make the Roswell, Twin Towers and Diana conspirators look like paragons of common sense.
I daresay some loon will be on shortly moaning that City weren't mentioned once on CBeebies this morning, or that Mister Maker had a red suit on, or that Natalie Pike isn't on page three.
The last of which I accept is regrettable.

Rather you than me, but keep fighting the corner.

I must warn you though (not that I needed to) that opposition is mild at the moment and there isn't too much to fight against. Just wait until you're not awared a penalty at Newcastle - the shit will really hit the fan then.

 

[tonea2003]

forget all the agenda/bias definitions nonsense

is there a secret tryst within all the media, uefa and the big clubs to specifically stop city to run their business
is there? really?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Perhaps the word 'conspiracy' in place of 'agenda' would provide more clarity and less room for confusion.

What does the OED say?

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

forget all the agenda/bias definitions nonsense

is there a secret tryst within all the media, uefa and the big clubs to specifically stop city to run their business
is there? really?

Your trophy haul since the takeover should answer that for you.

And I don't want to hear anyone say "We won in spite of the agenda!" bollocks.

 

[jimharri]

forget all the agenda/bias definitions nonsense

is there a secret tryst within all the media, uefa and the big clubs to specifically stop city to run their business
is there? really?

Your trophy haul since the takeover should answer that for you.

And I don't want to hear anyone say "We won in spite of the agenda!" bollocks.

B-b-but; we DID win in spite of the agenda!

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

To constructively argue any point you need to be sure you are arguing about the same thing hence the need to be clear about what each party means by "bias" and "agenda". I think the OED is the very place to begin.

If only people used the OED for clarification, as you suggest, rather than vindication, as is the case in most instances of its use in a debate, then I would more happily accept your assertion as to its currency.

So you finally concede that those with an agenda have a bias and those with a bias have an agenda, singular and plural. The beginning of wisdom, now convince Fetlocks.

Oh my days - I'm sat here wondering just how I would explain this dichotomy to a very slow six year old.
And then maybe dumb it down slightly for George.
Ok, let's have a go.
Now, we have a wonderful lexicography of words in the canon of English Literature.
Some of them don't mean the same thing at all, such as 'rhubarb' and 'mastectomy'.
Some can mean the same thing, such as 'near' and 'close'.
Then we have other words which have similar meanings, and often a shared purpose, meaning or context, such as 'agenda' and 'bias'.
They share a commonality of theme, but used separately mean completely different things.
So therefore agenda does not = bias.
If you wish to confirm this, just look up 'bias' in a thesaurus, and you will notice that 'agenda' does not come up as a synonym.
Now I'm going to have my pie in peace.

 

[Newman Noggs]

To constructively argue any point you need to be sure you are arguing about the same thing hence the need to be clear about what each party means by "bias" and "agenda". I think the OED is the very place to begin.

If only people used the OED for clarification, as you suggest, rather than vindication, as is the case in most instances of its use in a debate, then I would more happily accept your assertion as to its currency.

I've probably missed a few hundred posts, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've arrived at the point where it is agreed that there is widespread "bias" within the domestic media. The issue is whether there is an "agenda". I absolutely agree that these people of whatever media persuasion, unlike UEFA, do not sit down at some anti-City conference and agree a collective approach to promote the interests of the cartel and the denigration of City. But that is only a narrow and extreme concept of an agenda.

I am open to is an argument that the individuals within the media predominantly do have such an agenda based on their individual bias and that collectively that could add up to a instututional agenda.

For those who think it's unimportant, it might be to us as City fans, but to those who aren't and who might be in the future, all this adds up to advertising, either positive or negative. And that effects our ability to compete.

 

[Chippy_boy]

To constructively argue any point you need to be sure you are arguing about the same thing hence the need to be clear about what each party means by "bias" and "agenda". I think the OED is the very place to begin.

If only people used the OED for clarification, as you suggest, rather than vindication, as is the case in most instances of its use in a debate, then I would more happily accept your assertion as to its currency.

I've probably missed a few hundred posts, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've arrived at the point where it is agreed that there is widespread "bias" within the domestic media. The issue is whether there is an "agenda". I absolutely agree that these people of whatever media persuasion, unlike UEFA, do not sit down at some anti-City conference and agree a collective approach to promote the interests of the cartel and the denigration of City. But that is only a narrow and extreme concept of an agenda.

I am open to is an argument that the individuals within the media predominantly do have such an agenda based on their individual bias and that collectively that could add up to a instututional agenda.

For those who think it's unimportant, it might be to us as City fans, but to those who aren't and who might be in the future, all this adds up to advertising, either positive or negative. And that effects our ability to compete.

Agreed.

Now what?

 

[BobKowalski]

...

is there a secret tryst within all the media, uefa and the big clubs to specifically stop city to run their business
is there? really?

"No of course not Number 3. There is no secret organisation or agenda specifically set up to destroy Manchester City Football Club. Or so the world believes. Have you seen my Siamese fighting fish? Fascinating creatures. Brave but of the whole stupid. Yes they're stupid. Except for the occasional one such as we have here who lets the other two fight. While he waits. Waits until the survivor is so exhausted that he cannot defend himself, and then like UEFA... he strikes! "

"I find the parallel... amusing".

"We did not arrange for you to come over to UEFA just for amusement, Mr Gill"