so this agenda thing.

[Chippy_boy]

...

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"

I watched that for the 93rd time on Saturday night (what a great night's entertainment that was).

 

[Newman Noggs]

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?

We avoid the temptation to acrimoniously argue amongst ourselves as to whether there is an agenda or not.

Bias or agenda, I suspect the answer to it is the same and a longer term one that the club must be allowed to lead. We have taken the route of no comment which, to my mind, is the most sensible one at present but, speaking for myself, I take every opportunity to argue our corner. For example I have rung and and I do text Talkshite to correct their misinformation because, regardless of whether it puts money in their pocket, it is a major media outlet and it behoves us to put an alternative worldview. If it convinces even one person to question the shit they put out, then it will have been worth it. I work on Edmund Burke's principle that "nobody could make a greater mistake than to do nothing because he could only do little" or words to that effect.

My girlfriend lives in Warwick and has Ethiopian neighbours. The dad is a United fan, the 10 year old son is a City fan. I shall be ensuring that he comes to the odd game with me next season and becomes part of the City family. Bit by bit we'll get there.

 

[George Hannah]

...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.

a species of argument previously unknown in the rational world - but leaving trivialities like logic aside here's another clue to why you are wrong

 

[Chippy_boy]

George, I think you (and everyone else for that matter) are not properly distinguishing between the actions of the media - which is the subject of the OP's question and the basis of the whole thread - and those of UEFA. These are entirely different matters.

I don't imagine the now pie-filled fetlocks is saying UEFA have no agenda. It's blindingly obvious that THEY do and I don't think anyone is debating that, are they???

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

...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.

a species of argument previously unknown in the rational world - but leaving trivialities like logic aside here's another clue to why you are wrong

Sorry to be the one to break this to you mate, but some random non-sequitur of a story regarding David Gill neither proves the existence of an agenda, nor alters the fact that, for hopefully the last time, 'bias' and 'agenda' are two different words, with two different meanings, and proof of one does not constitute proof of the other.
It's not that hard a concept to grasp.
But then I recall all too vividly that you are indeed a veritable Bluemoon St Jude when it comes to trying to validate lost causes, so I'll leave you and what remnants of the tinfoil hat brigade still believe in conspiracies to their ruminations.

 

[George Hannah]

George, I think you (and everyone else for that matter) are not properly distinguishing between the actions of the media - which is the subject of the OP's question and the basis of the whole thread - and those of UEFA. These are entirely different matters.

I don't imagine the now pie-filled fetlocks is saying UEFA have no agenda. It's blindingly obvious that THEY do and I don't think anyone is debating that, are they???

I wish it were so but see above. Alas those who argue that the blindingly obvious ant-City agenda in every newspaper and broadcaster is a mirage also claim the same thing about UEFA, which is of course a creature of our rival clubs and their media allies.

 

[Len Rum]

An historic agreement has been reached in this thread regarding bias against City in the media.
Let us not waste the day in petty bickering.
Cry God for Pellers ,City and Saint Vincent!

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

I don't imagine the now pie-filled fetlocks is saying UEFA have no agenda. It's blindingly obvious that THEY do and I don't think anyone is debating that, are they???

No, but then that was neither the question posed by the OP, or contested in the first place, so he promptly moved the goalposts.
George is still labouring under the misapprehension that the media are also in on some multi-agency global conspiracy to discredit City.
I think there is certainly a place for this school of thought, but that place is either the P3 ward at Stepping Hill, or the Meadowbrook mental health unit.
You just can't reason with such folk, as they can't even understand that 'bias' and 'agenda' mean different things, so I'm through even trying.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

How was your pie, NF?

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

How was your pie, NF?

It was lovely mate, thanks for asking, although the radishes are beginning to repeat on me now.