MOTD - Media Bias Against City

[john68]

Stuart,
Thank you for your response Mate.
I wasn't asking you to answer for the national press, I posted that to attempt to give you a better understanding of the crap reporting that City fans are subjected to and for you to understand why views have become entrenched and patience with the media short.
My post was specific to a particular article. I am quite sure you fully understood the allusion to the other woman (even if some others didn't) and your mention of Angelina Jolie was a nice sidestepping round, rather than facing of the issue. I find it hard to believe that your City friends are happy to be continually compared to our neighbours.

Regarding other fans opinions of the media, Do you not think this could reflect on the general quality of football coverage dished out? I respect that you have the courage to face your critics and appreciate the opportunity to air my point directly. Please be assured that I have no respect whatsoever for the likes of Talksport or the red top gutter press. Their lies, speculation, celeb stylee, and sensationalist coverage does them no credit. (I don't expect you to answer for them)

I fully trust that your opinion is honestly held and you see no wrong in what you or your paper write/publish. That saddens me because it means you see little need to reflect or take on board why so many City fans have reached our opinion of your and your papers coverage. Nor do I note any chance of much change. Debate is only useful if it is a learning process that drives progress.

[Cocacolajojo1]

Stuart,
Thank you for your response Mate.
I wasn't asking you to answer for the national press, I posted that to attempt to give you a better understanding of the crap reporting that City fans are subjected to and for you to understand why views have become entrenched and patience with the media short.
My post was specific to a particular article. I am quite sure you fully understood the allusion to the other woman (even if some others didn't) and your mention of Angelina Jolie was a nice sidestepping round, rather than facing of the issue. I find it hard to believe that your City friends are happy to be continually compared to our neighbours.

Regarding other fans opinions of the media, Do you not think this could reflect on the general quality of football coverage dished out? I respect that you have the courage to face your critics and appreciate the opportunity to air my point directly. Please be assured that I have no respect whatsoever for the likes of Talksport or the red top gutter press. Their lies, speculation, celeb stylee, and sensationalist coverage does them no credit. (I don't expect you to answer for them)

I fully trust that your opinion is honestly held and you see no wrong in what you or your paper write/publish. That saddens me because it means you see little need to reflect or take on board why so many City fans have reached our opinion of your and your papers coverage. Nor do I note any chance of much change. Debate is only useful if it is a learning process that drives progress.

Just out of curiosity John, what have you learned from this debate that would entice Stuart to continue the discussion? I'm sure you wouldn't want to come of as entrenched yourself, as you seem to dislike entrenched behaviour of others.

[Blue Since 76]

I ain't that difficult really ... here are my scores for tonight

Hart 9
Clichy 8
Lescott 7
Kompany 7
Richards 9
Nasri 8
Milner 9
Barry 10
Toure Y 9
Augero 9
Dzeko 3

See ... piece of piss

Well you got one right.

[john68]

Cocacolajojo,
All (honest) opinions are the product of what we have learned, felt or experienced and I have no problem whatsoever with entrenched ones, my own included. We all have them. The important thing for me is that as our experiences widen and new information is received, we remain open minded and allow our opinions to evolve accordingly. Many of my own entrenched opinions of my youth have changed dramatically as I have got older.

I am not trying to entice or trick Stuart into anything. Nor am I trying to belittle or insult him in a public forum. I am trying to take this opportunity to air my honest (entrenched?) and long held view on City's coverage in the paper and am happy to accept that Stuarts answers are likewise, just as honest.

My thoughts at present are that the paper has an agenda, albeit a commercial one. I don't expect it to pander to the whims of our club nor defend what may be indefensible about our club. I do feel (still feel) that there is a an imbalance of coverage and a lack of understanding about the nature of City. I do not hold him responsible for the faults of other media but am aware that he works within that media culture.

I suspect that may be expecting too much and more than Stuart can deliver. In the past, we have had dedicated reporters who were confirmed City fans. Though they could remain objective and professional in their writing, it was obvious they understood and had felt the same pains and suffered as we had. That quality is missing now. They also understood the nature of our feelings towards the rags and wrote accordingly. Paul Hince was particularly good at this. I often vehemently disagreed with his opinions but he understood and it showed in his coverage.

My hope was that by showing examples of national coverage, Stuart may gain some understanding of why many City fans are cynical about the media (not his fault nor responsibility) and by pointing out that many City fans are infuriated and feel insulted by continually being measured by the yardstick of the club we despise most, he would also understand some of what makes us tick.

I don't ask Stuart to lie and fully expect him to address uncomfortable issues, even rip us apart from time to time. but to do so in a way that shows he is the local dedicated journalist on our local paper. A paper that really should understand local feelings.

I am still learning and thanks for the question. it made me think and possibly learn a bit more.

[stuart brennan]

John68,
I do appreciate what you are saying, but my point is that the City support, like every club's support, is a broad church of opinion. In days gone by, with City fans as City reporter, there were still complaints about our coverage being anti-City or pro-United (and the reverse, from United fans). No matter what you do, which way you swing it, there will be numbers of people unhappy. But I do understand what you are saying.
The City fans I know have never liked having United rammed down their throats by the national media, but would discern between that and that quote from Joleon Lescott.
When I was number two on Utd, I made comparisons between them and Liverpool in the 70s and 80s - and as a Utd fan at that time, I think I am in a position to understand how City fans feel, as we had Liverpool rammed down our throats. I still recognise they were a great team.
I don't think that side of the debate is going anywhere, although I have taken your views on board.

I just want to pick you up one thing. You said that you feel the MEN has a commercial agenda. What do you mean by that?

[Beefymcfc]

Keep it up fella's, I'm enjoying this debate.

[Hazy2]

Keep it up fella's, I'm enjoying this debate.

your still keeping me up mate KOLO YAYA KOLO YAYA.

[Cocacolajojo1]

Cocacolajojo,
All (honest) opinions are the product of what we have learned, felt or experienced and I have no problem whatsoever with entrenched ones, my own included. We all have them. The important thing for me is that as our experiences widen and new information is received, we remain open minded and allow our opinions to evolve accordingly. Many of my own entrenched opinions of my youth have changed dramatically as I have got older.

I am not trying to entice or trick Stuart into anything. Nor am I trying to belittle or insult him in a public forum. I am trying to take this opportunity to air my honest (entrenched?) and long held view on City's coverage in the paper and am happy to accept that Stuarts answers are likewise, just as honest.

My thoughts at present are that the paper has an agenda, albeit a commercial one. I don't expect it to pander to the whims of our club nor defend what may be indefensible about our club. I do feel (still feel) that there is a an imbalance of coverage and a lack of understanding about the nature of City. I do not hold him responsible for the faults of other media but am aware that he works within that media culture.

I suspect that may be expecting too much and more than Stuart can deliver. In the past, we have had dedicated reporters who were confirmed City fans. Though they could remain objective and professional in their writing, it was obvious they understood and had felt the same pains and suffered as we had. That quality is missing now. They also understood the nature of our feelings towards the rags and wrote accordingly. Paul Hince was particularly good at this. I often vehemently disagreed with his opinions but he understood and it showed in his coverage.

My hope was that by showing examples of national coverage, Stuart may gain some understanding of why many City fans are cynical about the media (not his fault nor responsibility) and by pointing out that many City fans are infuriated and feel insulted by continually being measured by the yardstick of the club we despise most, he would also understand some of what makes us tick.

I don't ask Stuart to lie and fully expect him to address uncomfortable issues, even rip us apart from time to time. but to do so in a way that shows he is the local dedicated journalist on our local paper. A paper that really should understand local feelings.

I am still learning and thanks for the question. it made me think and possibly learn a bit more.

Thanks for the thorough answer! I think I better understand from where you're coming now. I'm not English and therefore didn't want to but in on an issue I have little detailed knowledge about, but I enjoy the debate as there are similar problems with sports journalism, and journalism in general, in Sweden as well. I merely wanted to understand where you were coming from more specifically, and what you wanted from Stuart Brennan. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'entice' though... Cuz it's not what I meant. Sorry for that. I no speaka de Engles so good.

[Beefymcfc]

Keep it up fella's, I'm enjoying this debate.

your still keeping me up mate KOLO YAYA KOLO YAYA.

Bastard, I knew that'd come back to haunt me!

*Yaya, Yaya Yaya*

It's all started again but this time I feel the need to dance ;-)

[Beefymcfc]

Thanks for the thorough answer! I think I better understand from where you're coming now. I'm not English and therefore didn't want to but in on an issue I have little detailed knowledge about, but I enjoy the debate as there are similar problems with sports journalism, and journalism in general, in Sweden as well. I merely wanted to understand where you were coming from more specifically, and what you wanted from Stuart Brennan. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'entice' though... Cuz it's not what I meant. Sorry for that. I no speaka de Engles so good.

Bugger, I had you down as a Yankee.

[Moonchesteri]

Bugger, I had you down as a Yankee.

Before I found out he's Swedish I thought he's Canadian! (don't know why)

[Beefymcfc]

Bugger, I had you down as a Yankee.

Before I found out he's Swedish I thought he's Canadian! (don't know why)

Now, that'd be embarrassing.

[freshie]

Thanks for the thorough answer! I think I better understand from where you're coming now. I'm not English and therefore didn't want to but in on an issue I have little detailed knowledge about, but I enjoy the debate as there are similar problems with sports journalism, and journalism in general, in Sweden as well. I merely wanted to understand where you were coming from more specifically, and what you wanted from Stuart Brennan. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'entice' though... Cuz it's not what I meant. Sorry for that. I no speaka de Engles so good.

Bugger, I had you down as a Yankee.

So did I

[john68]

Stuart,
Thank you for your reply, though I feel that we must agree to disagree. I think the discussion regarding that particular issue was a worthwhile one.
My comment regarding the paper having a commercial agenda is quite simple. It has to sell papers, retain a readership and sell advertising.It does not exist as a charity and is a commercial business. There are times when that and the demographics of your readership dictate the angle from which a story is written. That is only natural as a northern newspaper writing mainly for a northern audience.
On a similar issue, you did ask why the paper would adopt an anti City bias as it would mean commercial suicide. I would suggest that much damage has already been done. As you will have noted, it is normal for most City fans on here to use the title MuEN. Not only on here but in other forums and fans' literature. The term is quite commonly used and has been for many years. This term is reflective of many City fans honestly held opinion and must have a reasoning behind it. Maybe (and that maybe is a genuine suggestion) it is not a deliberate anti City policy but a failing within the MuEN organisation to fully understand City fans.

Once again Thank you.

[Cocacolajojo1]

Thanks for the thorough answer! I think I better understand from where you're coming now. I'm not English and therefore didn't want to but in on an issue I have little detailed knowledge about, but I enjoy the debate as there are similar problems with sports journalism, and journalism in general, in Sweden as well. I merely wanted to understand where you were coming from more specifically, and what you wanted from Stuart Brennan. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'entice' though... Cuz it's not what I meant. Sorry for that. I no speaka de Engles so good.

Bugger, I had you down as a Yankee.

Sorry to disappoint. But you're probably right in the sense that my English is a product of watching a lot of American sit-coms. Thanks Joey!

[john68]

thanks for the acknowledgement Cocacolajojo...(that is some username). I wasn't certain why you were asking but thought I'd give a thorough response as it would also clarify to Stuart Brennan where I was coming from.
I detected that maybe he felt a bit under attack from all sides and felt a bit of trust may help relax and open up discussion. I was aware that there were many of us and only one of him, plus it was on our ground which takes a bit of bottle.

Even if we have yet to agree on much, I would hope that he better understands who we are.

[zuricity]

Well Mr. Brennan, get the MEN to have a "don't like" counter on the comments and articles. Like was sheepishly put on the website for the "like" button and you might be taken a little more seriously than you and the MEN are taken.

It should take one of your Java 'heinies' about three hours to code, test and implement, it is only a class / object addition. Easy.

I'm sure you understand why you need this and if you don't you shouldn't be in the job you are in

[mcfc1632]

As a 55 year old Eccles born fella, I have kept out of this debate as for anyone of my generation - or even younger - the clear bias is overwhelming evident – to the point where it is hardly about opinions as the position is so clear.

It is not something really to debate as anyone (of course all IMO) who cannot see it must either:

a) Have a particular position to maintain – I can respect SB for trying to address the issues on a fans forum. Also, I can understand how he would not feel that he can be ‘too open and honest’, as to be so (in the opinion of CITY fans) would require him to show some acknowledgement of the grossly insulting behaviour of the paper towards CITY over many years. This is likely a position that - even if he was objective and self aware enough to do – his masters at the paper would not appreciate.

Of course, more likely SB ‘genuinely’ does not see what is clearly evident to CITY fans because he does not have the background / mindset / desire to do so.

Or

b) Be someone that has not really read the paper over a sustained period of time so are speaking from a position of being poorly informed – or perhaps someone that just wants to post in a magnanimous and fair-minded manner in their responses that they are simply not in tune with the ingrained nature of frustration and disregard shown by my generation of CITY fan towards the paper. Such widespread – and I think an increasing level of disregard - by CITY fans has in turn been developed from decades of the contempt that the paper has shown to all/most things CITY.

So, @ John68 – fair play to your (and others) attempts to sensibly and rationally explain the views of (I strongly suspect the vast majority) CITY fans – but it will not work because people in the 2 categories are (understandably) not ‘open / receptive'.

For me the more serious issue for the paper to address is it’s business plan with regards to local distribution. Perhaps it is only when the potential for significant commercial impact to be inflicted is clear to people up their governance chain that action will be taken to address what is clearly a systemic issue

Despite the rise of CITY and the evidence that the new ownership is here for the long term and is in fact good for the wide Manchester economy, the contempt and clear bias has continued over the last 2 years. It is as clear today as it was last year – perhaps driven by the irresistible DNA of the paper’s editorial approach and the individuals involved. Indeed the only difference I have seen in recent years is a ‘sharpening’ of the bias as we have become more threatening to the paper’s cherished establishment that is MU – a mixture of reporting that reflects disdain or at best ‘dammed by the minimum of faint praise’.

Specific point @ SB – your attempts to explain / suggest examples that – in your view – demonstrate that the paper is anything less than the toadying vassal of MU and in particular the manager are totally ineffective. For me, they/he have played your paper like some desperate addict needing their regular fix. Such whimpering is akin to the desperate pleading of the addict that – although in reality knowing that they are being abused on an ongoing basis and have had to abandon any semblance of integrity and principles to sustain their habit – still crawls back to the source.

If the commercial future of the paper is immune to the need for significant local distribution – either to grow that distribution or at least protect the established level then CITY fans can expect to see no change in the coming years, such a change of a systemic culture requires significant motivation. If the paper does have a dependency on such distribution then the senior execs might eventually – if the clamour is of the right level – start to pay attention and take action. This is an illness that cannot be treated by the ‘sop’ of shallow words and gestures – and I am sorry – the fielding of a correspondent to ‘bleat the drum’ just does not cut it – welcome and respected though it is towards the individual.

The paper perhaps ought to ‘listen up’ – the noise is perhaps not ‘growing’ – the fans have been pissed off with the paper for decades – but the platform perhaps is getting stronger. I sense that it is approaching a level where a number of fan’s forums might start to act in concert to take action. Also, SB seems to take a lot of comfort in the position of the CITY media function. He may be right – personally I doubt that the CITY view is as relaxed as the paper may wish to interpret.

What I do ‘think’ is that the new CITY management have amply demonstrated that the commitment to listening and acting on the views of fans comes right from the top, with action frequently taken to implement changes that reflect the views received. If a level of concert by fans forums was to result in coordinated representation to the club I could envisage the club ‘listening’.

SB makes a strong – inarguably correct in principle – statement that his (and by extension the paper’s) role is not to ‘pander’ to CITY fans. Sounds good – but of course is totally inconsistent to the toadying level that they have pandered to MU for decades – essentially becoming the ‘voice of MU’.

Perhaps the senior execs at the paper – perhaps informed by SB as to where the wind is blowing – might start to review their approach? I would suggest that CITY fans do not seek ‘pandering’ – we would settle for evidence of a reducing level of contempt – and perhaps an even-handed approach in the application of a ‘non-pandering’ mandate.

[carl_feedthegoat]

As a 55 year old Eccles born fella, I have kept out of this debate as for anyone of my generation - or even younger - the clear bias is overwhelming evident – to the point where it is hardly about opinions as the position is so clear.

It is not something really to debate as anyone (of course all IMO) who cannot see it must either:

a) Have a particular position to maintain – I can respect SB for trying to address the issues on a fans forum. Also, I can understand how he would not feel that he can be ‘too open and honest’, as to be so (in the opinion of CITY fans) would require him to show some acknowledgement of the grossly insulting behaviour of the paper towards CITY over many years. This is likely a position that - even if he was objective and self aware enough to do – his masters at the paper would not appreciate.

Of course, more likely SB ‘genuinely’ does not see what is clearly evident to CITY fans because he does not have the background / mindset / desire to do so.

Or

b) Be someone that has not really read the paper over a sustained period of time so are speaking from a position of being poorly informed – or perhaps someone that just wants to post in a magnanimous and fair-minded manner in their responses that they are simply not in tune with the ingrained nature of frustration and disregard shown by my generation of CITY fan towards the paper. Such widespread – and I think an increasing level of disregard - by CITY fans has in turn been developed from decades of the contempt that the paper has shown to all/most things CITY.

So, @ John68 – fair play to your (and others) attempts to sensibly and rationally explain the views of (I strongly suspect the vast majority) CITY fans – but it will not work because people in the 2 categories are (understandably) not ‘open / receptive'.

For me the more serious issue for the paper to address is it’s business plan with regards to local distribution. Perhaps it is only when the potential for significant commercial impact to be inflicted is clear to people up their governance chain that action will be taken to address what is clearly a systemic issue

Despite the rise of CITY and the evidence that the new ownership is here for the long term and is in fact good for the wide Manchester economy, the contempt and clear bias has continued over the last 2 years. It is as clear today as it was last year – perhaps driven by the irresistible DNA of the paper’s editorial approach and the individuals involved. Indeed the only difference I have seen in recent years is a ‘sharpening’ of the bias as we have become more threatening to the paper’s cherished establishment that is MU – a mixture of reporting that reflects disdain or at best ‘dammed by the minimum of faint praise’.

Specific point @ SB – your attempts to explain / suggest examples that – in your view – demonstrate that the paper is anything less than the toadying vassal of MU and in particular the manager are totally ineffective. For me, they/he have played your paper like some desperate addict needing their regular fix. Such whimpering is akin to the desperate pleading of the addict that – although in reality knowing that they are being abused on an ongoing basis and have had to abandon any semblance of integrity and principles to sustain their habit – still crawls back to the source.

If the commercial future of the paper is immune to the need for significant local distribution – either to grow that distribution or at least protect the established level then CITY fans can expect to see no change in the coming years, such a change of a systemic culture requires significant motivation. If the paper does have a dependency on such distribution then the senior execs might eventually – if the clamour is of the right level – start to pay attention and take action. This is an illness that cannot be treated by the ‘sop’ of shallow words and gestures – and I am sorry – the fielding of a correspondent to ‘bleat the drum’ just does not cut it – welcome and respected though it is towards the individual.

The paper perhaps ought to ‘listen up’ – the noise is perhaps not ‘growing’ – the fans have been pissed off with the paper for decades – but the platform perhaps is getting stronger. I sense that it is approaching a level where a number of fan’s forums might start to act in concert to take action. Also, SB seems to take a lot of comfort in the position of the CITY media function. He may be right – personally I doubt that the CITY view is as relaxed as the paper may wish to interpret.

What I do ‘think’ is that the new CITY management have amply demonstrated that the commitment to listening and acting on the views of fans comes right from the top, with action frequently taken to implement changes that reflect the views received. If a level of concert by fans forums was to result in coordinated representation to the club I could envisage the club ‘listening’.

SB makes a strong – inarguably correct in principle – statement that his (and by extension the paper’s) role is not to ‘pander’ to CITY fans. Sounds good – but of course is totally inconsistent to the toadying level that they have pandered to MU for decades – essentially becoming the ‘voice of MU’.

Perhaps the senior execs at the paper – perhaps informed by SB as to where the wind is blowing – might start to review their approach? I would suggest that CITY fans do not seek ‘pandering’ – we would settle for evidence of a reducing level of contempt – and perhaps an even-handed approach in the application of a ‘non-pandering’ mandate.

Well put, now lets wait for the spin doctors reply.

[Beefymcfc]

Reading this thread through with regard to the MEN and Stu Brennan, what he fails to take into account is the level of City fans that feel the MEN is bias towards United.

It's OK for Mr Brennan to explain and try to reason why but he must understand that their is a majority of City fans who believe it has been and still is there. Surely, as a rational person, this must be taken on board rather than dismiss it?

I have no problem with the MEN (or Mr Brennan) per se as I understand that they target their audiance and those who want to buy the paper usually want to read good news. United have had this for years. What I cannot excuse is what happened the other day where a relatively good performance, whilst down to 10 men, was shown by the MEN to be a lucky escape by way of the Players Ratings. Maybe Stuart was suffering that day but there was no need to make out that City were suffering as well. This has happened on too many occassions.

I do wonder if, with the onset of internet media, that the MEN no longer just cater for the Manchester area but more look at their online hits nationally and from abroad. This would explain a lot as due to Uniteds 600,000 million (apparently) world wide fans, they have now pushed the MENs clicks (I mean 'clicks' in the sense that they can command higher advertising fees with more 'clicks') to such an amount that they may as well carry on the motion as before with just the paper copy.

Anyway, good debate, ignore me and please carry on.