so this agenda thing.

[BigOscar]

Not agenda as such, but a very odd infographic in the guardian today about the difference between our strikers and Liverpools. They listed both teams attackers, how much they cost and how many they scored in how many games last season. Bafflingly, they decided to add Jesus Navas to our 4 strikers, bumping up the price and lowering our strikers scoring rate. No idea why they did it, as they didn't add Silva or Nasri, just Navas and our 4 strikers. Probably just terrible journalism tbh.

 

[George Hannah]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11695/9438101?

Lifted from the Rodwell thread. Check out his comments on young English players joining City. The complete opposite of what was reported. Mere bias no doubt......

even made the BBC Teletext page today - just to show that, unlike them, I'm not biased here it is

Former Manchester City midfielder Jack Rodwell, 23, now with Sunderland, insists he would never warn young players against moving to the Etihad Stadium, contrary to recent reports. (Manchester Evening News)

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11695/9438101?

Lifted from the Rodwell thread. Check out his comments on young English players joining City. The complete opposite of what was reported. Mere bias no doubt......

even made the BBC Teletext page today - just to show that, unlike them, I'm not biased here it is

Former Manchester City midfielder Jack Rodwell, 23, now with Sunderland, insists he would never warn young players against moving to the Etihad Stadium, contrary to recent reports. (Manchester Evening News)

George that does prove a bias and twisting of words, but most sports media is like that. The BBC sports outlet isn't going to be as objective (if you can call it objective) as the real news arm, because that is not how sports media works, it is less important that such media has a slant or untruth to it.

I read the article too George and it was clear that what Rodwell was saying was, "think about it", not "don't sign for City". However, individual journalists aren't responsible for headlines, that is sub editors, and their job is to make the news as enticing-to attract readers. It's obviously different with the BBC because they don't generate revenue from advertising, but they still have to justify expenditure- so it wouldn't be surprising if titles are slanted to elicit interest.

Rodwell also told porky pies in that article; "Despite struggling with a hamstring injury since moving to City, Rodwell has dismissed the suggestion that he is injury prone.
"Last season, over the course of the whole season, I was injured for about three weeks. I was fit and available for 47 of the 57 games.
"That might surprise quite a lot of people because they probably didn't see my name on the team sheet and just assumed I must be injured.
"I've been fit for a year-and-a-half now. I'm just ready to go.""

but that isn't the story that is going to elicit the greatest audience-there are two competing journalistic issues- objective reporting, and framing stories to attract the greatest audience.

The content and the headline and the subheading say two different things. This is not surprising as it has been produced by two different people. What this does prove is bias, it is clear that Rodwell is responding to questions asked of him, and they are questions framed to elicit a certain response- we are not party to those questions, that is a bias in itself, (though it is standard practice not to include questions). What that does not prove, however is an agenda, as you see it anyway. Of course media outlets have an agenda, if they big up Louis Van Gaal as they at the start of the season, they generate readership, and TV and Radio audience increases. If the rags don't keep pace with expectation that is the story, if they do, that is a story. The build 'em up and knock 'em down technique is tried and trusted as the England national team proved. This year they tried to turn an all time low in expectation into a positive slant- and lots of people fall for it.


Yes George, you are biased , you suffer from a confirmation bias, trawling through news stories online and in teletext to prove your conspiracy theology.

 

[George Hannah]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11695/9438101?

Lifted from the Rodwell thread. Check out his comments on young English players joining City. The complete opposite of what was reported. Mere bias no doubt......

even made the BBC Teletext page today - just to show that, unlike them, I'm not biased here it is

Former Manchester City midfielder Jack Rodwell, 23, now with Sunderland, insists he would never warn young players against moving to the Etihad Stadium, contrary to recent reports. (Manchester Evening News)

George that does prove a bias and twisting of words, but most sports media is like that. The BBC sports outlet isn't going to be as objective (if you can call it objective) as the real news arm, because that is not how sports media works, it is less important that such media has a slant or untruth to it.

I read the article too George and it was clear that what Rodwell was saying was, "think about it", not "don't sign for City". However, individual journalists aren't responsible for headlines, that is sub editors, and their job is to make the news as enticing-to attract readers. It's obviously different with the BBC because they don't generate revenue from advertising, but they still have to justify expenditure- so it wouldn't be surprising if titles are slanted to elicit interest.

Rodwell also told porky pies in that article; "Despite struggling with a hamstring injury since moving to City, Rodwell has dismissed the suggestion that he is injury prone.
"Last season, over the course of the whole season, I was injured for about three weeks. I was fit and available for 47 of the 57 games.
"That might surprise quite a lot of people because they probably didn't see my name on the team sheet and just assumed I must be injured.
"I've been fit for a year-and-a-half now. I'm just ready to go.""

but that isn't the story that is going to elicit the greatest audience-there are two competing journalistic issues- objective reporting, and framing stories to attract the greatest audience.

The content and the headline and the subheading say two different things. This is not surprising as it has been produced by two different people. What this does prove is bias, it is clear that Rodwell is responding to questions asked of him, and they are questions framed to elicit a certain response- we are not party to those questions, that is a bias in itself, (though it is standard practice not to include questions). What that does not prove, however is an agenda, as you see it anyway. Of course media outlets have an agenda, if they big up Louis Van Gaal as they at the start of the season, they generate readership, and TV and Radio audience increases. If the rags don't keep pace with expectation that is the story, if they do, that is a story. The build 'em up and knock 'em down technique is tried and trusted as the England national team proved. This year they tried to turn an all time low in expectation into a positive slant- and lots of people fall for it.

Yes George, you are biased , you suffer from a confirmation bias, trawling through news stories online and in teletext to prove your conspiracy theology.

As a newspaper sub-editor myself for several years I can assure you that writers are well able to make their headline suggestions known and will usually object if they disagree with yours. When some hack complains that they are only responsible for the text and not the headline it always raises a smile.
A shared agenda is not always a conspiracy btw.

 

[stonerblue]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11695/9438101?

Lifted from the Rodwell thread. Check out his comments on young English players joining City. The complete opposite of what was reported. Mere bias no doubt......

even made the BBC Teletext page today - just to show that, unlike them, I'm not biased here it is

Former Manchester City midfielder Jack Rodwell, 23, now with Sunderland, insists he would never warn young players against moving to the Etihad Stadium, contrary to recent reports. (Manchester Evening News)

On this subject, i did notice ratboy Neville had it right about Rodwell when commentating on yesterdays comedy hour (and a half)

 

[City Glory While Others Fade]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/


Yes George, you are biased , you suffer from a confirmation bias, trawling through news stories online and in teletext to prove your conspiracy theology.

If this thread and posters upsets you so much post your comments elsewhere!

 

[Deleted member 58678]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11695/9438101?

Lifted from the Rodwell thread. Check out his comments on young English players joining City. The complete opposite of what was reported. Mere bias no doubt......

even made the BBC Teletext page today - just to show that, unlike them, I'm not biased here it is

Former Manchester City midfielder Jack Rodwell, 23, now with Sunderland, insists he would never warn young players against moving to the Etihad Stadium, contrary to recent reports. (Manchester Evening News)

George that does prove a bias and twisting of words, but most sports media is like that. The BBC sports outlet isn't going to be as objective (if you can call it objective) as the real news arm, because that is not how sports media works, it is less important that such media has a slant or untruth to it.

I read the article too George and it was clear that what Rodwell was saying was, "think about it", not "don't sign for City". However, individual journalists aren't responsible for headlines, that is sub editors, and their job is to make the news as enticing-to attract readers. It's obviously different with the BBC because they don't generate revenue from advertising, but they still have to justify expenditure- so it wouldn't be surprising if titles are slanted to elicit interest.

Rodwell also told porky pies in that article; "Despite struggling with a hamstring injury since moving to City, Rodwell has dismissed the suggestion that he is injury prone.
"Last season, over the course of the whole season, I was injured for about three weeks. I was fit and available for 47 of the 57 games.
"That might surprise quite a lot of people because they probably didn't see my name on the team sheet and just assumed I must be injured.
"I've been fit for a year-and-a-half now. I'm just ready to go.""

but that isn't the story that is going to elicit the greatest audience-there are two competing journalistic issues- objective reporting, and framing stories to attract the greatest audience.

The content and the headline and the subheading say two different things. This is not surprising as it has been produced by two different people. What this does prove is bias, it is clear that Rodwell is responding to questions asked of him, and they are questions framed to elicit a certain response- we are not party to those questions, that is a bias in itself, (though it is standard practice not to include questions). What that does not prove, however is an agenda, as you see it anyway. Of course media outlets have an agenda, if they big up Louis Van Gaal as they at the start of the season, they generate readership, and TV and Radio audience increases. If the rags don't keep pace with expectation that is the story, if they do, that is a story. The build 'em up and knock 'em down technique is tried and trusted as the England national team proved. This year they tried to turn an all time low in expectation into a positive slant- and lots of people fall for it.


Yes George, you are biased , you suffer from a confirmation bias, trawling through news stories online and in teletext to prove your conspiracy theology.

There are a few like that towards this topic. It's kind of masochistic. It's like gaining gratification by purposely trying to find things that they know will anger them and put a barrier up against the positive things out there.

 

[Deleted member 58678]

<a class="postlink" href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d7dXIOyg8j0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d7dXIOyg8j0</a>

To me, Sky have dramatised that little clip to make it look like Gladiators going out in front of 90000 to achieve something of importance.

The slow motion, the dramatic music, "MCFC" and our star players on show at the home of football (Wembley), with Sky saying they're the home of football.

I enjoyed seeing it anyway.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Notice how every English player who were regulars when coming to us get negative attitudes towards them the longer they're with us until everyone starts believing they're shite.

Lescott went from England regular to getting phased out of the squad despite being at the heart of the best defence 2 years running in the league while Jagielka keeps his status as some exceptional centre back and the likes of Smallng and Jones become regulars despite doing fuck all just because they went to the scum.

Barry went from one of the best midfielders in the league at Villa to allegedly only being good because of the players around him until everyone else thought the was shite due to the criticism he got for anything he did, then he goes to Everton and all of a sudden he's 'underrated' and again one of the best mids in the league.

Hart makes a few mistakes in a rough and now a game doesn't go by where commentators nitpick everything he does while Ben f***ing Foster gets calls to replace him, pmsl.

And that's just a few, will never forget how Milner was constantly singled out for poor performance during Euros 2012 when his role was to babysit Glen Johnson by tracking back cause the twat can't defend, while exciting 'young' players like Lallana (one-two years younger than Milner) have one good year and are all of a sudden are the second coming and exactly what England need.

And of course we ruin every young English player's career when they join us.

The worst of it is then other supporters parrot all this tripe since they'd rather listen to these so called analysts and commentators rather than use their own brans.

Bang on the money, been saying exactly the same for years. Lescott the mainstay of a defence that wins the league and f all recognition, doesn't even become a regular pick.

Rag player puts on a rag shirt for 5 minutes and becomes an England player, look at the hype around januzaj. Clearly he's that good that's why they want to sign di Maria. Said he was over hyped from day one. Don't get me started on Rooney and the over hyping of him, now he's being touted for England captain ffs. Having said that him being so over hyped has backfired to some degree with the rags handing out a mega deal for a player that is a good premier league player at best.

Why wasn't Milner an automatic pick for England being a regular for the double winners? Saw action in a dead rubber against Costa Rica.

Just on Lescott.

His best season for us was 2011/2012 and he made 10 England appearances in 2012. He only made 10 appearances in total for the 5 years 2007-2011

 

[BigOscar]

I'll never get over how Micah was overlooked off the back of the first title winning campaign in favour of Phil Jones and Martin fucking Kelly. He should of been first choice ahead of Glen Johnson, who'd been a trainwreck all year, yet wasn't even in the squad. Ridiculous.

 

[Blue Is the Opposite of Blue]

I'll never get over how Micah was overlooked off the back of the first title winning campaign in favour of Phil Jones and Martin fucking Kelly. He should of been first choice ahead of Glen Johnson, who'd been a trainwreck all year, yet wasn't even in the squad. Ridiculous.

Looking back, I think Capello was right.

Richards' positioning is absolutely terrible and that was Capello's criticism of him.

 

[Deleted member 58678]

Notice how every English player who were regulars when coming to us get negative attitudes towards them the longer they're with us until everyone starts believing they're shite.

Lescott went from England regular to getting phased out of the squad despite being at the heart of the best defence 2 years running in the league while Jagielka keeps his status as some exceptional centre back and the likes of Smallng and Jones become regulars despite doing fuck all just because they went to the scum.

Barry went from one of the best midfielders in the league at Villa to allegedly only being good because of the players around him until everyone else thought the was shite due to the criticism he got for anything he did, then he goes to Everton and all of a sudden he's 'underrated' and again one of the best mids in the league.

Hart makes a few mistakes in a rough and now a game doesn't go by where commentators nitpick everything he does while Ben f***ing Foster gets calls to replace him, pmsl.

And that's just a few, will never forget how Milner was constantly singled out for poor performance during Euros 2012 when his role was to babysit Glen Johnson by tracking back cause the twat can't defend, while exciting 'young' players like Lallana (one-two years younger than Milner) have one good year and are all of a sudden are the second coming and exactly what England need.

And of course we ruin every young English player's career when they join us.

The worst of it is then other supporters parrot all this tripe since they'd rather listen to these so called analysts and commentators rather than use their own brans.

Bang on the money, been saying exactly the same for years. Lescott the mainstay of a defence that wins the league and f all recognition, doesn't even become a regular pick.

Rag player puts on a rag shirt for 5 minutes and becomes an England player, look at the hype around januzaj. Clearly he's that good that's why they want to sign di Maria. Said he was over hyped from day one. Don't get me started on Rooney and the over hyping of him, now he's being touted for England captain ffs. Having said that him being so over hyped has backfired to some degree with the rags handing out a mega deal for a player that is a good premier league player at best.

Why wasn't Milner an automatic pick for England being a regular for the double winners? Saw action in a dead rubber against Costa Rica.

Just on Lescott.

His best season for us was 2011/2012 and he made 10 England appearances in 2012. He only made 10 appearances in total for the 5 years 2007-2011

Indeed. He got MOTM against Spain when we won 1-0 as we'll didn't he?

Also remember the game when we had six/seven players on at once against Switzerland away? Great night, that.

Since then our English contingent has reduced somewhat and it has therefore for England too.

Although I certainly agree that Milner deserves to have had more of a chances he's so reliable and has shown that even in big games against the elite (Barça away he was our best player and München away he was up there with Silva and actually got MOTM) he can do really well.

 

[George Hannah]

I'll never get over how Micah was overlooked off the back of the first title winning campaign in favour of Phil Jones and Martin fucking Kelly. He should of been first choice ahead of Glen Johnson, who'd been a trainwreck all year, yet wasn't even in the squad. Ridiculous.

Looking back, I think Capello was right.
Richards' positioning is absolutely terrible and that was Capello's criticism of him.

as a City fan you are allowed to be biased tho' - in fact it's sort of expected - in fact it's essential
still it takes all sorts I suppose

 

[cibaman]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11695/9438101?

Lifted from the Rodwell thread. Check out his comments on young English players joining City. The complete opposite of what was reported. Mere bias no doubt......

even made the BBC Teletext page today - just to show that, unlike them, I'm not biased here it is

Former Manchester City midfielder Jack Rodwell, 23, now with Sunderland, insists he would never warn young players against moving to the Etihad Stadium, contrary to recent reports. (Manchester Evening News)

George that does prove a bias and twisting of words, but most sports media is like that. The BBC sports outlet isn't going to be as objective (if you can call it objective) as the real news arm, because that is not how sports media works, it is less important that such media has a slant or untruth to it.

I read the article too George and it was clear that what Rodwell was saying was, "think about it", not "don't sign for City". However, individual journalists aren't responsible for headlines, that is sub editors, and their job is to make the news as enticing-to attract readers. It's obviously different with the BBC because they don't generate revenue from advertising, but they still have to justify expenditure- so it wouldn't be surprising if titles are slanted to elicit interest.

Rodwell also told porky pies in that article; "Despite struggling with a hamstring injury since moving to City, Rodwell has dismissed the suggestion that he is injury prone.
"Last season, over the course of the whole season, I was injured for about three weeks. I was fit and available for 47 of the 57 games.
"That might surprise quite a lot of people because they probably didn't see my name on the team sheet and just assumed I must be injured.
"I've been fit for a year-and-a-half now. I'm just ready to go.""

but that isn't the story that is going to elicit the greatest audience-there are two competing journalistic issues- objective reporting, and framing stories to attract the greatest audience.

The content and the headline and the subheading say two different things. This is not surprising as it has been produced by two different people. What this does prove is bias, it is clear that Rodwell is responding to questions asked of him, and they are questions framed to elicit a certain response- we are not party to those questions, that is a bias in itself, (though it is standard practice not to include questions). What that does not prove, however is an agenda, as you see it anyway. Of course media outlets have an agenda, if they big up Louis Van Gaal as they at the start of the season, they generate readership, and TV and Radio audience increases. If the rags don't keep pace with expectation that is the story, if they do, that is a story. The build 'em up and knock 'em down technique is tried and trusted as the England national team proved. This year they tried to turn an all time low in expectation into a positive slant- and lots of people fall for it.


Yes George, you are biased , you suffer from a confirmation bias, trawling through news stories online and in teletext to prove your conspiracy theology.

It was noticeable also that he mentioned that nowadays he takes the day off training if he feels any tightness. Which kind of suggests that he isn't 100% over his problems. And perhaps explains why Pellegrini was reluctant to play him.

 

[BigOscar]

I'll never get over how Micah was overlooked off the back of the first title winning campaign in favour of Phil Jones and Martin fucking Kelly. He should of been first choice ahead of Glen Johnson, who'd been a trainwreck all year, yet wasn't even in the squad. Ridiculous.

Looking back, I think Capello was right.

Richards' positioning is absolutely terrible and that was Capello's criticism of him.

And yet he picked Glen Johnson, who has even worse positional sense and had been even worse than usual that year, Phil Jones, the definition of a headless chicken and Martin Kelly, who is just shit.

 

[Blue Mooner]

Bang on the money, been saying exactly the same for years. Lescott the mainstay of a defence that wins the league and f all recognition, doesn't even become a regular pick.

Rag player puts on a rag shirt for 5 minutes and becomes an England player, look at the hype around januzaj. Clearly he's that good that's why they want to sign di Maria. Said he was over hyped from day one. Don't get me started on Rooney and the over hyping of him, now he's being touted for England captain ffs. Having said that him being so over hyped has backfired to some degree with the rags handing out a mega deal for a player that is a good premier league player at best.

Why wasn't Milner an automatic pick for England being a regular for the double winners? Saw action in a dead rubber against Costa Rica.

Just on Lescott.

His best season for us was 2011/2012 and he made 10 England appearances in 2012. He only made 10 appearances in total for the 5 years 2007-2011

Indeed. He got MOTM against Spain when we won 1-0 as we'll didn't he?

Also remember the game when we had six/seven players on at once against Switzerland away? Great night, that.

Since then our English contingent has reduced somewhat and it has therefore for England too.

Although I certainly agree that Milner deserves to have had more of a chances he's so reliable and has shown that even in big games against the elite (Barça away he was our best player and München away he was up there with Silva and actually got MOTM) he can do really well.

He played 21 times in 36 England games of which only 13 were competitive, whilst playing for one of the top teams in England for 5 years. In the year that we won the league if he didn't get picked the year he was the mainstay in the champions team there would be something seriously amiss.

Contrast that with Ferdinand who made 65 appearances when with the rags and was never not picked apart from when he was withdrawn due to sickness or injury, which was incidentally 17 times......of course we never saw any furore about a lack of loyalty to the national team.

Was very proud the night we had so many representatives from City that night against the Swiss, shame it was never repeated.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Just on Lescott.

His best season for us was 2011/2012 and he made 10 England appearances in 2012. He only made 10 appearances in total for the 5 years 2007-2011

Indeed. He got MOTM against Spain when we won 1-0 as we'll didn't he?

Also remember the game when we had six/seven players on at once against Switzerland away? Great night, that.

Since then our English contingent has reduced somewhat and it has therefore for England too.

Although I certainly agree that Milner deserves to have had more of a chances he's so reliable and has shown that even in big games against the elite (Barça away he was our best player and München away he was up there with Silva and actually got MOTM) he can do really well.

He played 21 times in 36 England games of which only 13 were competitive, whilst playing for one of the top teams in England for 5 years. In the year that we won the league if he didn't get picked the year he was the mainstay in the champions team there would be something seriously amiss.

Contrast that with Ferdinand who made 65 appearances when with the rags and was never not picked apart from when he was withdrawn due to sickness or injury, which was incidentally 17 times......of course we never saw any furore about a lack of loyalty to the national team.

Was very proud the night we had so many representatives from City that night against the Swiss, shame it was never repeated.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Lescott was as good a centre-half as Ferdinand when they were both being selected for England?

 

[Blue Mooner]

Indeed. He got MOTM against Spain when we won 1-0 as we'll didn't he?

Also remember the game when we had six/seven players on at once against Switzerland away? Great night, that.

Since then our English contingent has reduced somewhat and it has therefore for England too.

Although I certainly agree that Milner deserves to have had more of a chances he's so reliable and has shown that even in big games against the elite (Barça away he was our best player and München away he was up there with Silva and actually got MOTM) he can do really well.

He played 21 times in 36 England games of which only 13 were competitive, whilst playing for one of the top teams in England for 5 years. In the year that we won the league if he didn't get picked the year he was the mainstay in the champions team there would be something seriously amiss.

Contrast that with Ferdinand who made 65 appearances when with the rags and was never not picked apart from when he was withdrawn due to sickness or injury, which was incidentally 17 times......of course we never saw any furore about a lack of loyalty to the national team.

Was very proud the night we had so many representatives from City that night against the Swiss, shame it was never repeated.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Lescott was as good a centre-half as Ferdinand when they were both being selected for England?

Considering he only made 4 England appearances post Lescott signing for City I dont have to make that direct comparison.

All I know is that they were both defenders playing with top premier league sides one who was an ever present when available, the other making pretty sporadic appearances.

I would argue that had Lescott been playing for the rags he would have been an ever present barring when the rags deemed he wasn't available for selection....

And actually based on the standard of England defenders available Leavitt should have been an automatic pick.

 

[George Hannah]

Breaking news! Sky' secret vaults are opened to reveal hitherto forbidden footage - the agenda is under strain

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9f530xnUs&feature=youtu.be[/video]

 

[jay_mcfc]

I d like Phil Mcnulty on the bbc webpage even though he is a Scousers and does tend to jump on bandwagons. Enjoyed this from last night

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28932512" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28932512</a>