Its common place for teams to feel a sense of spite towards media who they deem to be biased against their teams and in favour of others. Just wanted everyone's (other teams fans too) on who they feel the media gnerally and specifically targets and lauds. Such as: sky, daily mail, star, mirror, times, telegraph, talk sport etc.
Well talksport hate us, especially that Durham clown. The problem (on a general level) is, we're currently seen as something of a novelty club, due to the fact we've missed out on silverware for a while, so whenever even something relatively minor happens, the media are on it in a flash. ManUre could lose 2 straight games and the media would be like "oh, they'll bounce back next time", we lose 2 games and "Arsenal are in crisis." Only way to sort it out is to win something.
The media neither hate or favour clubs. They simply look for raw nerves wherever they can find them and stick a needle in. They feed on reaction to their commentary be it good or bad, just as long as 'our' reaction is strong.
The media as a whole yes, it's what sells, but individual journos do have agendas and feel the same about the various clubs same as us fans. The Beeb Sport site is run out of Salford and is pro United, hardly veiled either. Sky Totally pro United as United have been their brand donkey. Re Neville, he is a good pundit, probably the best atm. He's fairly impartial stupid comments about Luiz being controlled by a PS3 controlller apart, he's been very good And yeah, Arsenal always seem to be in a crisis when they go out of all comps then the crisis is forgotten at the start of the following season, every time.. I would agree with the winning a major tourney, FA Cup CL PL, would put that to bed, till the following season
That's true in cases like Talksport but not for most outlets. The media has an agenda and a viewpoint, if you have a viewpoint you cannot be objective, no such thing as objectivity in media especially in UK. United are the biggest cash cow for the TV broadcasters like Sky, BBC and ESPN and in the case of the first 2 in particular the bias towards them is pretty overt. Majority of viewers are Southern Man U "fans" so they probably want to hear about how great Man U are and how badly Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and City are doing. The "noisy neighbours" tag applied to City is overtly biased as it implies implicit inferiority. Would such a tag be applied to Spurs? Sunderland? Everton? Fulham? etc. Liverpool also have a large global fanbase therefore they get fairly decent coverage from ESPN, Sky, etc. Overt media bias is as follows Guardian = Arsenal BBC/The Sun/Times/Sky = Man U Mirror = Liverpool/Arsenal/Spurs
Chelsea are the New Kid on the Block. Nobody likes the New Kid on the Block I feel we get fair press from the left, but the right wing Man U papers really have it in for us, The Sun in particular, Sky as well Mirror are anti-Chelsea but most journo's there are Arsenal/Spurs so hardly surprising.
I felt there was some love creeping in when Jose was there but none since I guess. But yeah, who loves City too so I suppose the new money teams who have spend less overall in the PL since it began compared to United and others are not liked, the beeb still print negative Balotelli articles and he's at Milan now, that site it 110% scummer supporters.
With regards to Man Utd and Sky, it shouldn't be forgotten that BSkyB and Rupert Murdoch tried to buy Man Utd more than 10 years ago. I think that deal only collapsed because obviously it wasn't in the public interest. They also used to partially own their club channel MUTV. There is no surprise that all the outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch are heavily Man Utd biased. ITV is also Man Utd biased. Not complaining about the live games they always get, they just get the most viewers, especially from the southern "fans" District Line mentioned. It's their commentators who keep brownnosing everyone/everything Man Utd related.
Lets take the penalty against Norwich. Its a clear pull back and nailed on penalty but all of the pundits are crying because it was given by the lino because the ref was too much of a **** to give it himself. From what Ive seen every channel, pundits and managers are all saying about it. What I don't understand is why they no one appears to have said it was the right decision or that the corner that it came from was a wrong decision and that is the only reason we should not have got it.
Sky are saying its not a penalty because Giroud was pulling Kamara's shirt at the same time, but the linesman, because he's too far away, can't see that. This is the problem and why everyone is unsurprisingly condemning the decision
Not sure what relevance this has to whether it was a pen or not? Edit: the sky report says Gibbs tripped Kamara, which is correct, so I'm not sure what you're talking about tbh
Cry about it somewhere else. Everyone here thinks it was a penalty. The only shirt I saw being pulled to twice its normal size was Girouds.
