Read on Twitter
I know there has been some angst in some parts of City FT on criticism of football journalists by City fans. I can't speak for anyone else but from my view point, it stems from the perception that most coverage of City seems to be aimed at an audience that aren't City fans.
Is the coverage agenda driven? Maybe a minority of it but mostly it seems biased. For example, a Covid delayed game & a legitimate goal last week got more coverage than a hacking scandal or even two football clubs conspiring to change the whole structure of the game.
A lot of how the criticism is levied can be misconstrued, it's called a "pile on" etc but when you compare the relative reach of a negative article or the tweet from a 100k+ follower journo account it's actually minimal. Not for a minute do I justify abuse..that is abhorrent.
Let me remind that there is a New York Times article (!!?!), among others, about City fans about a year ago the reach of which is so massive that it dwarfs any tweet or a fanzine article. Also show me any good articles about the transformational impact of City in the league.
Articles that doesn't take potshots at the "bottomless pit of money" or human rights or the spending etc. This is a team that's won 4 league titles in the last 10 years and you can count on one hand the positive pieces we have seen about them.
Nearly 99% of the media coverage of FFP/CAS was wrong. It was the amazing work of City fans like @slbsn and @prestwichblue which ended up covering the issue correctly.
Another example, look at the sheer numbers negative articles about Raheem Sterling's move to City (and thereafter) and see the deafening silence in the media towards them, you can get a sense of what a corrosive atmosphere that this creates.
There are two ways of reacting to these articles or tweets, one is to ignore them since they are anyhow intended to cause outrage and hence drive more clicks/RTs. But then without criticism some untruths become accepted facts. The second is to push back with real facts.
The second approach certainly has its fallacies, trawling through past tweets can be end up with a confirmation bias, after all not every tweet is thought through or even intended as what they are. But when there is a pattern then there is genuine grounds to question
Especially when the person writes an article which seems overly critical or is seen to be twisting facts or promoting lazy untruths. I understand the concern that such criticism can have an impact on good relations with that journalist or medium..
But I don't understand how do you have a meeting of minds when one party approaches it with a pre-existing bias?
Also I think the pushback works, for example, BT Sports seems to have stopped mentioning squad/player costs in the last few games.
Also I think the pushback works, for example, BT Sports seems to have stopped mentioning squad/player costs in the last few games.
None of what I've tweeted or said is perfect or is above criticism but I've tried to withdraw/apologize and try and reach out in private when I know I've said something wrong.
Conversely I've also tried to highlight well researched articles even if they are critical
Conversely I've also tried to highlight well researched articles even if they are critical
Like I mentioned earlier, I cannot speak for anyone else. I condemn abuse if any kind but I think factual criticism has its rightful place and I am happy lend my tiny (and often flawed) voice to it. Cheers.
