The mancityfans.net football forum

Here Mark Ogden of the Telegraph explains how the press cater for the fans of the usual teams & pretty much rubber stamps that there is actually an agenda & explains the reasons why there is an agenda, which are the exact reasons many of us have been claiming for years on here. He then attempted to backtrack, but too fucking late.

I unashamedly edit everything else out & just refer to the important bits & add my own observations in yellow!

The full story is here: Interview from MCFC Forum. http://www.mcfcforum.com/latest-news/14 ... plains-all




Why has there been a lack of coverage by journalists of City's recent pre season tour of America and more focus on United and Liverpool?

Firstly, budgets and manpower have to be considered. The Sun and Mail were the only two papers to cover City, United and Liverpool throughout their US tours as they have the biggest budgets.

At the Telegraph, our guy with Liverpool spent two days with City when the two clubs met in New York. It wasn’t ideal, but we could only send two reporters and that’s how it worked out.

I looked into doing the New York leg, but my schedule with United made it impossible because of the Inter game in Washington. Hmm.

Ok, so here comes the excuse

Because of the changes at Old Trafford, United was the priority tour. New manager, lots of players leaving (not so many arriving!) and the whole sense of the club being in a state of flux meant United had to be covered from start to finish

Ok, fair enough this once, you may say...BUT...

As for Liverpool, they are a huge global brand, the only English club who can compete with United on that scale, and coverage is also based on the demand and appetite from readers.

And

With online coverage nowadays, papers can get exact numbers for clicks and visits to stories online and the reality is that United and Liverpool dwarf the rest in terms of interest, followed by Arsenal and Chelsea.

In pure economics, advertisers want to pay for their product to be seen by as many people as possible, so a daily stream of United and Liverpool stories gives them that.

Is it so difficult to imagine then, that a story ripping the shit out of City will also get a fair few clicks from a good percentage of the same people, so it's in their interests to do it ? In fact it's a 100% fucking nailed on certainty isn't it ?

And the same doesn't apply to Sky, ITV, & the fact MOTD is full of scousers & rags, isn't to appease their viewing public ?

He then goes on to talk about City not being as 'media friendly' as Utd & Liverpool & that the press don't get the same access, & basically backtracks on the reasons he has already laid out & admitted to & starts claiming they would follow City if we gave them more interviews, which he has already told us, is BOLLOCKS.. I can't be arsed quoting it.

Many of us on here, have been saying for years, that the media caters for rags etc & THAT is the reason for the 'agenda'. I have said myself that it's catering for: rags, scousers, London. He has just confirmed it.

This guy is just a reporter, not one of the people who decides policy, but he knows what that policy is.

If there are still pillocks on here burying their heads in the sand on this subject, fucking wake up. It's not a case of paranoia, it's a case of media planning. There is a fucking agenda, & this bloke has told you exactly why.

Why should they bother with City. What have we done in recent years except win two out of the last three League titles the FA Cup and the League Cup. We need to come seventh and sack the manage then they'll cover us.

Tossers.

viewtopic.php?f=119&t=48809&start=20

Uh huh, thank god Ted is here to point out stuff we already knew.

Slim wrote:http://www.mancityfans.net/mcfnet/viewtopic.php?f=119&t=48809&start=20

Uh huh, thank god Ted is here to point out stuff we already knew.

Sorry, didn't notice it had been put in there, but if some cunt wants to merge or delete it they can do.

It really does hold to everything we've been saying all Summer. And not only that, this is the second article I've seen where the story is the lack of articles on City.

You're fucking kidding me, there's an agenda?!?

Still total bollocks Ted. What he's saying is that where a team has a wide following it makes commercial sense to give them priority coverage, surprise surprise. What the agenda loonies have been saying is "somewhere a group of people, be it journos, administrators or referees sit down to plot ways to do lickle city down" which is of course total mickey Mouse tosh.The evidence that its bollocks is astonishingly simple and is the fact that the only person in football to believe this kind of crap was none other than Sir Alex Ferguson, serial paranoid delusionist who believed Manchester United were the victims.

getdressedmctavish wrote:Still total bollocks Ted. What he's saying is that where a team has a wide following it makes commercial sense to give them priority coverage, surprise surprise. What the agenda loonies have been saying is "somewhere a group of people, be it journos, administrators or referees sit down to plot ways to do lickle city down" which is of course total mickey Mouse tosh.

I agree with this bit.

I don't like the word "agenda" when we use it on here, it has overly strong connotations I think. United/Liverpool have the largest fanbases and the papers reflect that, exactly how it was explained in that interview.

At least, media coverage has never been "fair". I realised this morning reading the news that I literally have no idea what 15 PL clubs have done this summer, because I just haven't seen any news about them whatsoever. Almost everything has been "look at this picture of Van Gaal talking on a training pitch". Its crap, but it gets the most mouse clicks apparently so we are stuck with it.

We are lucky as City fans because as time goes on we will get more and more coverage. Teams like Stoke and West Brom will just get forgotten about completely.

getdressedmctavish wrote:Still total bollocks Ted. What he's saying is that where a team has a wide following it makes commercial sense to give them priority coverage, surprise surprise. What the agenda loonies have been saying is "somewhere a group of people, be it journos, administrators or referees sit down to plot ways to do lickle city down" which is of course total mickey Mouse tosh.The evidence that its bollocks is astonishingly simple and is the fact that the only person in football to believe this kind of crap was none other than Sir Alex Ferguson, serial paranoid delusionist who believed Manchester United were the victims.

No that isn't what most have been saying tbh, it's just the simplistic view used to argue against. Most have been saying that the media pander to rags & scousers (I have always included the bigger southern clubs) & that a negative story re City also serves the same purpose.

This is pretty much proof that it's true, from the horses mouth.

Then there is a other factor: if you are pandering to rags & scousers etc, then you will employ more of them in the media. A look around the media proves this to be absolutely the case.

So then the question is: are the likes of Roy Keane, Rio Ferdinand, Robbie Fowler, Phil Thompson, Paul Merson etc etc etc neutral? The answer is absolutely fucking not.

Will many of them do the best to show their favourites in a favourable light ? 100% yes. Will many of them shit on City at every opportunity ? 100% yes.

The common agenda is; everyone pander to rags etc often but not exclusively by praising rags & shitting on us . The 2nd agenda is not a shared one, it is 1000s of individuals each with their own personal agenda but many sharing a similarity ie they are rags, scousers etc & they don't like us. So we get a common shit on & a host of individual shit ons.

Both ways we get the shit end of the stick & there is an agenda to promote the others at our expense.

Ferguson btw knew the pro rag agenda existed & therefore put pressure on journos to make it even moreso & of course to press refs to be scared of him.

LOOKMUM IS THE BIGGETS FUCKIGN CULPRIT , CLAIMS THERE IS NO BIAS.

I say to you.....your a fucking TIT.
(Might as well carry on from where we left off )

getdressedmctavish wrote:Still total bollocks Ted. What he's saying is that where a team has a wide following it makes commercial sense to give them priority coverage, surprise surprise. What the agenda loonies have been saying is "somewhere a group of people, be it journos, administrators or referees sit down to plot ways to do lickle city down" which is of course total mickey Mouse tosh.The evidence that its bollocks is astonishingly simple and is the fact that the only person in football to believe this kind of crap was none other than Sir Alex Ferguson, serial paranoid delusionist who believed Manchester United were the victims.

I think it's people like yourself who've pushed the 'Paranoia' piece so far down the line that it just makes a debate about such things useless. This interview confirms exactly what you state, and that which we all know, that for media outlets it's all about the coin. Therefore, they have an agenda to appease their clients. That is no longer in doubt.

On other issues, there is a clear agenda and it's clear for all to see. Take the PL FFP regulations for instance. The agenda was set by the Rags, Arsenal, Dippers and Spurs when they set-up the rules and asked for the vote. We, and others obviously went against this because we do not need it yet we are now bound by those rules, as we are by UEFA FFP. The agenda's were set when they implemented these rules and the very nature of an agenda in this instance is to set things in motion in an aim curtail a clubs chances of progressing.

I know I'm not paranoid, ask the aliens, but I do know that there are things in place that go against our club. The media have been doing it since we started challenging whilst other clubs have been putting barriers in place to prevent us from getting where we want to be.

As for ref's, associations and other related parties who have their noses in the trough, I couldn't say if they are complicit in some sort of agenda or not but one thing I always keep in mind is that where's there's money, there's greed, and if there was a chance that any of them would be losing a share or possible exclusion, then I'm absolutely certain they would do everything within their power to ensure their vested interests are safe.

And who says it has to be against us, it could just be pro-somebody else, as per the statement by Ogden above. And if it is, say, pro-Rag, then it's obviously not going to be for us so therefore it has to be ........................

Interesting article that. Also I love the way our club is run under Manuel, quietly understated and professional. We get on with our business, the players remain much calmer now, they don't rise to the bait, we talk on the pitch and gained even more respect last season from the media and pundits in general who are mostly making us favourites this season.

I love this club, so do you send that's all that matters.

Ted Hughes wrote:With online coverage nowadays, papers can get exact numbers for clicks and visits to stories online and the reality is that United and Liverpool dwarf the rest in terms of interest, followed by Arsenal and Chelsea.

In pure economics, advertisers want to pay for their product to be seen by as many people as possible, so a daily stream of United and Liverpool stories gives them that.

Is it so difficult to imagine then, that a story ripping the shit out of City will also get a fair few clicks from a good percentage of the same people, so it's in their interests to do it ? In fact it's a 100% fucking nailed on certainty isn't it ?

Erm, no it isn't. I'd guess a fair few on here read more Rag and Scouse articles from news websites than they do City - I certainly do, because 99.9% of City-related things I am interested in are cut-and-pasted onto here. Add to that the massive number of fairweather fans in SE Asia and the like, who probably don't give two hoots about negative stories about us, because they just want to hear positives about their teams, and your mental leap makes it seem like you're the one with an agenda...

I don't know about the Sun's website, but the Mail is probably the most-read English language site with regards to the Premiership over here, and I guess in a fair few other countries, too. They have set their website up perfectly to keep the neutral or minor fan interested in their site for as long as possible, and to read as many articles as possible, just like their main site is set up to keep paedophiles off the streets by filling the sidebar with stories about sexy kids.

I wouldn't say the media have an agenda. That implies they actually care about one side over the other. They have a business model.

That model doesn't care about anyone or anything. It's just a business plan and simply that is to get the most clicks on their sites as possible to generate as much advertising revenue.

Part of what you missed out is quite pertinent I think Ted. The reason there has not been a lot of coverage of our tour is that that there was no appetite within our club to grant access to Pellers, Soriano and key players for interviews. I'd rather there was no coverage as they've had no access rather than loads of coverage based on bollox they've made up. That only relates to this summer though.

I've not minded the lack of coverage, I'm looking forward to us forcing them to write about us due to our performances on the pitch - and I think that is what Pellers and the club management would rather too.

In general though I'm in full agreement about the pro-Utd and Liverpool bias across all media and it does my head in.

MaineRoadMemories wrote:I wouldn't say the media have an agenda. That implies they actually care about one side over the other. They have a business model.

That model doesn't care about anyone or anything. It's just a business plan and simply that is to get the most clicks on their sites as possible to generate as much advertising revenue.

Potatoes, Potatos, Tomatoes, Tomatos.

Its a fucking agenda....the bias cunts.

BlueinBosnia wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:With online coverage nowadays, papers can get exact numbers for clicks and visits to stories online and the reality is that United and Liverpool dwarf the rest in terms of interest, followed by Arsenal and Chelsea.

In pure economics, advertisers want to pay for their product to be seen by as many people as possible, so a daily stream of United and Liverpool stories gives them that.

Is it so difficult to imagine then, that a story ripping the shit out of City will also get a fair few clicks from a good percentage of the same people, so it's in their interests to do it ? In fact it's a 100% fucking nailed on certainty isn't it ?

Erm, no it isn't. I'd guess a fair few on here read more Rag and Scouse articles from news websites than they do City - I certainly do, because 99.9% of City-related things I am interested in are cut-and-pasted onto here. Add to that the massive number of fairweather fans in SE Asia and the like, who probably don't give two hoots about negative stories about us, because they just want to hear positives about their teams, and your mental leap makes it seem like you're the one with an agenda...

I don't know about the Sun's website, but the Mail is probably the most-read English language site with regards to the Premiership over here, and I guess in a fair few other countries, too. They have set their website up perfectly to keep the neutral or minor fan interested in their site for as long as possible, and to read as many articles as possible, just like their main site is set up to keep paedophiles off the streets by filling the sidebar with stories about sexy kids.

What an absolute load of steaming hairy bollocks. The Telegraph mainly does it's website, in English, to attract people in fucking Indonesia ?

That's what you call bollocks of the most ridiculous level, & one of the flimsiest arguments I've ever read.

Utter fucking nonsense.

Nickyboy wrote:Part of what you missed out is quite pertinent I think Ted. The reason there has not been a lot of coverage of our tour is that that there was no appetite within our club to grant access to Pellers, Soriano and key players for interviews. I'd rather there was no coverage as they've had no access rather than loads of coverage based on bollox they've made up. That only relates to this summer though.

I've not minded the lack of coverage, I'm looking forward to us forcing them to write about us due to our performances on the pitch - and I think that is what Pellers and the club management would rather too.

In general though I'm in full agreement about the pro-Utd and Liverpool bias across all media and it does my head in.

I missed that deliberately as I said, so as not to confuse the issue.

The bloke was asked the question & for once, one of the cunts has admitted what most of us already knew; they tailor their reporti g to suit rags, scousers etc because there are more of them.

Then he starts to back pedal & make excuses. It's complete fucking lies. He uses the example of being allowed to interview Yaya & that it would be a different interview done outside the influence of City. Then compares us to Utd.

So basically, for all these years, Utd players have usually been giving frank & truthful interviews which are often critical of the club or staff & give candid bits of info that the club don't like ? And all this under the happy gaze of Sir Alex Ferguson ?

What utter fucking lies. Does that cunt really think we are having that ? That's why I missed it out.

Ask Stuart Brennan which club was easier to deal with.

Ogden is lying because he has let something slip.

How do the 'no agenda' crew explain the negative slant on almost all City related stories then? I see City treated differently to the 'old' Sky four almost daily, and that treatment can't be explained away as a lack of public interest.

Well now we know it's happening and admitted to what will the club be doing about it. They employ PR people so they can design a strategy to address this over the next few years. It's part of building the brand.