BobKowalski wrote:john68 wrote:Times were different in the 60s and I blame much of the change (for the worse) on the media.
Whereas football was usually covered by football writers for football purposes...match reports etc, now we have a subversive media that digs out anything and everything it can about clubs and players, even down to the minutiae of their lifestyles. It panders to the celeb culture that it has created and then having built it up...ensures that it knocks it back down again.
For me, the worst part is that the media demands only SUCCESS NOW. It ignores the reality that success usually and historically is an evolvement that takes time. Time is not allowed, anyone seen to be failing from the very start is destroyed.
Whether we like to admit or not, whether we believe we are free thinkers who make up our own minds or not, the vast majority are victims of what we read incessantly, on a daily basis. We become part of the society that demands "what we want...NOW."
...and therein lies the danger....Nobody is given time. Failure, even temporary failure is not tolerated. Results NOW have become all important.
At City, we have GOT to succeed NOW...there is a demand for the marquee celeb footballer. There is the belief that titles can be bought without the necessity of the work and time to gel a team together. Every failure is seen in gut wrenching extremes, when the reality is that it takes time
I tried to make a thread some time ago about Mercer and whether he would have been given the time or at what point he would have been seen as a failure. I wasn't allowed and it was dragged into a Hughes in/out debate...But I honestly think that Mercer could have been in danger under today's pressures and not allowed to gradually evolve and build his team.
Welcome to the age of 24/7 media. Its like a gaping maw that consumes everything and shits it out the other end. The one thing you can do to a limited degree is control the media and it helps if you have them onside. At the moment we do not have the media onside. The media perceives us as a club in disarray and 3 games away from sacking the manager. Lose tomorrow and the heat will be turned up even further. You will be analysing the game with the pros and the cons and everyone else will be screaming for blood (italian, chilled and served with pate) and threads will be popping up about the drivel Mancini speaks and the garbage footie etc etc followed by more reports of fan unrest, player unrest and boardroom unease.
On the bright side though if Mancini can get 4th spot with all this he's a fucking genius :)
Both Points are valid in my opinion.
John's points about how it was are very important. History is very important to understand, there are very many revisionist of City's history on this forum. I remember delivering 'The Sun' newspaper when it was not a tabloid and didn't have any pictures of tits and bums in it. People could actually read articles in it ! John will certainly remember that too.
The key to Johns and my generations views are based on having to try to read between the lines in what is written because at that time, so little was written and therefore any analysis was based on open discussion, with family, with schoolmates and with friends ( particlulary remember enjoying Tuesday's morning break at school where the lads would discuss the previous evenings monty pythons flying circus and for many of us that maybe missed say a joke in french about John Paul Sartre on the blower with John Cleese trying to win a bet, somebody else could explain it, because they knew or had picked it up from their parents perhaps).
Today we have forum like this one that replace our friends , familes , schoolmates etc. However, very little time is allowed for discussion, it's all about 'cool' answers, or abusive language , as if somehow that makes your argument more valid, it's about bling and instant success. However today we have enough tools at hand to make a case , when used correctly. We've seen
great examples of this even on this site , with the ability to embed videos, etc. sometimes hilarious, but sometimes very relevant to the issue at hand.
So much data is bandied about as 'information', not because it is relevant, but because it can make money ( example newsnow.co.uk). Anybody today can make money on web sites if they so wish. Making money in Johns (and my time) by one of the masses selling information was unheard of, simply not possible.
There is a massive ( got that word in again), difference in data and information. Developing the filtering process is what makes data become information.
It's always the same in Football. We all want to see City eventually win tournaments and championships, finally the club has the financial clout to do it. If we didn't win anything for the next five years, I bet everyone that comes on this site would still be a city fan. That is Stability.
The only major difference I think today is that the media goes in search of new heroes on a day to day basis. People that have actually no talent or gift are made into heroes one day and destroyed the next by the media itself. It used to be that sportsmen became heroes ( Colin Bell, Georgie Best, Denis Bergkamp etc) today an old woman from Scotland is packed up and sells millions of records destroying great songs like the Rolling Stones 'wild horses'. She'll be dumped when the nation gets bored with her. Adebayor has become a hero for scoring a few goals, he's actually managed to miss almost as may games as he has played for us ! Yet he's hailed as some kind of hero , when he hasn't even performed for City on a regular basis over several seasons.
I prefer today's situation than when I was young however, if only because I have gone through the process of learning to analyse the data i get fed on a day to day basis from all aspects of the media. Separating the wheat from the chaff. I think for youngsters and younger people it must be quite harrowing at times to work out what is and what isn't useful information. Simply because we are bombarded with so much today.
Stability ? Perhaps Everton are more stable than us ? Lower costs, all seem to fight for each other, some good youngsters coming through. Same boss for a few years. Youngsters getting good experience at the top level. I was never a fan of Hughes, but i've also maintained , even on this forum, that any discussion of Hughes should be done at the end of the season. It's the same for Mancini you just can't bring a guy in and then dump him without giving him a chance. Even Pearce was given time to build 'his' team (with the resources that were available to him).
