The mancityfans.net football forum

Wednesday's game was just the latest of City's games to get the following media slant:

Chelsea played well, and deserved a point.

This, translated means that City pissed all over them second half, had 61% possession overall, and 3 or 4 times as many attempts at goal. Chelsea played well because they scored a lucky deflected goal, and City were poor because they got an (obvious) penalty and failed to win by 3 or 4. This is a very odd perception which applies only to City.

City were 'very poor' for only beating Bolton 2-0, despite the fact our play deserved 8.

Sunderland were 'excellent' because they only got across the half way line once (in the 2nd minute of injury time) and Lee Cattermole was MoM, despite the oppo 11 having about 75% of the game.

A 1-0 win at Villa, again with total domination, was apparently shocking - stuttering, poor away for etc.

I could go on, but the opposite perception in the media for the Evil Empire is very, very biased. Cakey last minute wins against Norwich after being given the runaround, are apparently 'the sign of Champions' and 'experience', and all that nonsense.

It was interesting to see an article this week on the possibility of SKY losing out to Qatar in the next round of bidding, and it said SKY was perceived as giving very biased coverage by many.

Damn right it does, but so do many other journalists. At this moment, after an unlucky defeat at Swansea, they are all tipping Scum, despite the fact that their team has some awful results this season, and still has to come to City, who have won every home game for yonks, not lost at all domestically by more than one goal, and very, very rarely lets in more than one goal.

One day soon, we will have our day.

If the rags lose Sky, it will be as bad as losing Ferguson.

Commentators on the whole are just blithering idiots on the whole though. And most ex footballers don't seem to understand football very much. Ratface is pretty good compared to the other clowns on Sky from that point of view I hate to say. ESPN has given the black David Icke a job now (why?).

I watched a recording yeterday which had Mcmanamanamamanam & some cunt on it & they just moaned & moaned & moaned about City, even claiming we'd not looked like scoring at all in the match, then they went on about what a great night it was for the scum, then we scored two & they both turned into fanboys, saying what a great performance it was. Dreadful stuff.

john@staustell wrote:Wednesday's game was just the latest of City's games to get the following media slant:

Chelsea played well, and deserved a point.

This, translated means that City pissed all over them second half, had 61% possession overall, and 3 or 4 times as many attempts at goal. Chelsea played well because they scored a lucky deflected goal, and City were poor because they got an (obvious) penalty and failed to win by 3 or 4. This is a very odd perception which applies only to City.

City were 'very poor' for only beating Bolton 2-0, despite the fact our play deserved 8.

Sunderland were 'excellent' because they only got across the half way line once (in the 2nd minute of injury time) and Lee Cattermole was MoM, despite the oppo 11 having about 75% of the game.

A 1-0 win at Villa, again with total domination, was apparently shocking - stuttering, poor away for etc.

I could go on, but the opposite perception in the media for the Evil Empire is very, very biased. Cakey last minute wins against Norwich after being given the runaround, are apparently 'the sign of Champions' and 'experience', and all that nonsense.

It was interesting to see an article this week on the possibility of SKY losing out to Qatar in the next round of bidding, and it said SKY was perceived as giving very biased coverage by many.

Damn right it does, but so do many other journalists. At this moment, after an unlucky defeat at Swansea, they are all tipping Scum, despite the fact that their team has some awful results this season, and still has to come to City, who have won every home game for yonks, not lost at all domestically by more than one goal, and very, very rarely lets in more than one goal.

One day soon, we will have our day.

Good thread. and good post, John.

I thought Chelsea were ok but nothing more. And that is not good enough to get a result at our place any more.

Swansea were apparently "superb" in their two games against us. Have a look back at what people said about them after the fist game of the season. Nothing against Swansea like [the sheepshagging bastards ;-)] but if losing 4-0 and having one shot on target in 97 minutes is "superb", there are some fundamental differences between sports writers and reality.

Ted Hughes wrote:If the rags lose Sky, it will be as bad as losing Ferguson.

Commentators on the whole are just blithering idiots on the whole though. And most ex footballers don't seem to understand football very much. Ratface is pretty good compared to the other clowns on Sky from that point of view I hate to say. ESPN has given the black David Icke a job now (why?).

I watched a recording yeterday which had Mcmanamanamamanam & some cunt on it & they just moaned & moaned & moaned about City, even claiming we'd not looked like scoring at all in the match, then they went on about what a great night it was for the scum, then we scored two & they both turned into fanboys, saying what a great performance it was. Dreadful stuff.

come to Italy, listen to a Sky Sport Italia coverage of whatsoever EPL game and You definitely see the Rag Bias is the most stretched benchmark of News Corp.
Even in politics they follow a marketing based policy to choose the camp to stand by (endorsing republicans in US, tories in UK, any opposition to Berluska in Italy); in football their rags bias is unconditioned worldwide.
Do You remember the 007 Tomorrow Never Dies fiction?

Mancio4ever wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:If the rags lose Sky, it will be as bad as losing Ferguson.

Commentators on the whole are just blithering idiots on the whole though. And most ex footballers don't seem to understand football very much. Ratface is pretty good compared to the other clowns on Sky from that point of view I hate to say. ESPN has given the black David Icke a job now (why?).

I watched a recording yeterday which had Mcmanamanamamanam & some cunt on it & they just moaned & moaned & moaned about City, even claiming we'd not looked like scoring at all in the match, then they went on about what a great night it was for the scum, then we scored two & they both turned into fanboys, saying what a great performance it was. Dreadful stuff.

come to Italy, listen to a Sky Sport Italia coverage of whatsoever EPL game and You definitely see the Rag Bias is the most stretched benchmark of News Corp.
Even in politics they follow a marketing based policy to choose the camp to stand by (endorsing republicans in US, tories in UK, any opposition to Berluska in Italy); in football their rags bias is unconditioned worldwide.
Do You remember the 007 Tomorrow Never Dies fiction?

In the UK they back whoever they think is most likely to win so they can pretend they have more influence than they really have! They had no hesitation switching to Labour before the 1997 election when it was obvious Blair was building up unstoppable momentum in the polls. To be fair Sky News in the UK has always managed to remain pretty neutral though political editor Adam Boulton slipped into open anti-Labour bias in 2010 and there was a big controversy about it. Didn't do any real harm as it was after the election and during the coalition talks.

Ted Hughes wrote:If the rags lose Sky, it will be as bad as losing Ferguson.

.

Sky will switch sides if it suits them, wherever they see commercial advantage in being biased they will be biased.

Socrates wrote:

Mancio4ever wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:If the rags lose Sky, it will be as bad as losing Ferguson.

Commentators on the whole are just blithering idiots on the whole though. And most ex footballers don't seem to understand football very much. Ratface is pretty good compared to the other clowns on Sky from that point of view I hate to say. ESPN has given the black David Icke a job now (why?).

I watched a recording yeterday which had Mcmanamanamamanam & some cunt on it & they just moaned & moaned & moaned about City, even claiming we'd not looked like scoring at all in the match, then they went on about what a great night it was for the scum, then we scored two & they both turned into fanboys, saying what a great performance it was. Dreadful stuff.

come to Italy, listen to a Sky Sport Italia coverage of whatsoever EPL game and You definitely see the Rag Bias is the most stretched benchmark of News Corp.
Even in politics they follow a marketing based policy to choose the camp to stand by (endorsing republicans in US, tories in UK, any opposition to Berluska in Italy); in football their rags bias is unconditioned worldwide.
Do You remember the 007 Tomorrow Never Dies fiction?

In the UK they back whoever they think is most likely to win so they can pretend they have more influence than they really have! They had no hesitation switching to Labour before the 1997 election when it was obvious Blair was building up unstoppable momentum in the polls. To be fair Sky News in the UK has always managed to remain pretty neutral though political editor Adam Boulton slipped into open anti-Labour bias in 2010 and there was a big controversy about it. Didn't do any real harm as it was after the election and during the coalition talks.

thanks for updating me, Jon. I ve been missing UK too much and for too long. My point was pretty much to compare their attitude on politics to that they apply to football. If You happened to ear and understand any italian comment of the self confessed Gunners' fan like Marianella wanking over the whole range of the rags' bias You would ended thrice fuming than after the best Hansen performance. Ditto.

stay well, Mate

Mancio4ever wrote:

Socrates wrote:

Mancio4ever wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:If the rags lose Sky, it will be as bad as losing Ferguson.

Commentators on the whole are just blithering idiots on the whole though. And most ex footballers don't seem to understand football very much. Ratface is pretty good compared to the other clowns on Sky from that point of view I hate to say. ESPN has given the black David Icke a job now (why?).

I watched a recording yeterday which had Mcmanamanamamanam & some cunt on it & they just moaned & moaned & moaned about City, even claiming we'd not looked like scoring at all in the match, then they went on about what a great night it was for the scum, then we scored two & they both turned into fanboys, saying what a great performance it was. Dreadful stuff.

come to Italy, listen to a Sky Sport Italia coverage of whatsoever EPL game and You definitely see the Rag Bias is the most stretched benchmark of News Corp.
Even in politics they follow a marketing based policy to choose the camp to stand by (endorsing republicans in US, tories in UK, any opposition to Berluska in Italy); in football their rags bias is unconditioned worldwide.
Do You remember the 007 Tomorrow Never Dies fiction?

In the UK they back whoever they think is most likely to win so they can pretend they have more influence than they really have! They had no hesitation switching to Labour before the 1997 election when it was obvious Blair was building up unstoppable momentum in the polls. To be fair Sky News in the UK has always managed to remain pretty neutral though political editor Adam Boulton slipped into open anti-Labour bias in 2010 and there was a big controversy about it. Didn't do any real harm as it was after the election and during the coalition talks.

thanks for updating me, Jon. I ve been missing UK too much and for too long. My point was pretty much to compare their attitude on politics to that they apply to football. If You happened to ear and understand any italian comment of the self confessed Gunners' fan like Marianella wanking over the whole range of the rags' bias You would ended thrice fuming than after the best Hansen performance. Ditto.

you too

Understood entirely, point is that they will swing whichever way that suits their commercial interests politically be it left or right. I see no reason why they will be any different when it comes to footie.

I obviously agree, Jon. How couldn't I?
Mind You: given the Media Duopoly as it stands in my Ol' Poor Country, I ve been an enthusiastic customer of Uncle Rupert since day one. still some overboard means of endorsement they use to apply - like the "Barack Hussein is not an American Born" Campaign that Fox News ran with the use of fake certificate of birth - made me blew more than any Wonderwall moderation policy might ever do.

Mancio4ever wrote:I obviously agree, Jon. How couldn't I?
Mind You: given the Media Duopoly as it stands in my Ol' Poor Country, I ve been an enthusiastic customer of Uncle Rupert since day one. still some overboard means of endorsement they use to apply - like the "Barack Hussein is not an American Born" Campaign that Fox News ran with the use of fake certificate of birth - made me blew more than any Wonderwall moderation policy might ever do.

We get the Fox Comedy Channel here too Rog, one minute they are banging on about gay marriage, next they show this...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4209969/jersey-boys-medley/

what a hoot :o)

Socrates wrote:

Mancio4ever wrote:I obviously agree, Jon. How couldn't I?
Mind You: given the Media Duopoly as it stands in my Ol' Poor Country, I ve been an enthusiastic customer of Uncle Rupert since day one. still some overboard means of endorsement they use to apply - like the "Barack Hussein is not an American Born" Campaign that Fox News ran with the use of fake certificate of birth - made me blew more than any Wonderwall moderation policy might ever do.

We get the Fox Comedy Channel here too Rog, one minute they are banging on about gay marriage, next they show this...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4209969/jersey-boys-medley/

what a hoot :o)

Ahah! Those Great Americans! still the only place where You can find a proper balance of weights:

I love these Guys:
[youtube]BvKFJ6iyGrI[/youtube]

I was just trying to imagine the abuse and furore if City had managed a cakey 1-0 home win against Fulham. We'd be doomed, cracking up, Mancini blown it, out of form, forwards no good, defence no good etc etc.

But of course it's "Rooney sends United back to top".