• Hey Guest!
    Enjoy the This Is Anfield Forums but want to remove the adverts? Now you can do so by clicking here.
    Thanks for your support!

Conspiracy? Bias? Dumb luck? Why do LFC get shit decisions?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Prolix

Long Time Nemesis™
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
2,947
[...]
1st What kind of objective, factual, evidence could possibly exist to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt (and not relying on opinion) that Murdoch controlled media has an anti LFC slant?
[...]
I think that this is distorting the real issue. We're not trying to establish an answer to the question "is Murdoch a greasy fucker?" We're trying to establish whether that has an observable/measurable sporting impact. The most compelling hypothesis of how this would work seems to be that media portrayals of different players can influence referee decisions about diving/simulation. I will say, however, that when this has been brought up on the forum in the past, the suggestion is that xenophobia is at work (English saints versus foreign devils), rather a targeted operation against specific club(s). There is a far cry between those two, and that mechanism is precisely what needs to be hypothesised. Contentious penalties/non-penalties seem to be the easiest element to isolate but somehow we can't find a consistent and reliable source of that data, even though it is far easier to obtain than content analysis of thousands of hours of media.
As a piece of scientific research it's pointless to even attempt it. You can't control the unconscious bias element of any human researchers as they embark on the project or any that they will develop during the period. The results would still be able to be refuted with a simple "in your opinion"!
You absolutely can control against researcher bias. The expectation can never be 100% objectivity (which has always been a convenient myth anyway), but a carefully constructed research design is meant to mitigate against researcher bias. Almost certainly there are generally agreed-upon metrics and analytical devices used for assessing bias in media reporting. Making those kinds of assessments should be neither difficult nor controversial (with the exception of that delightful section of the population that are 'post-truth'ers, but fuck them).

I would also like to push back against this idea that the research project would be so unwieldy and large that it could never be attempted. Perhaps not by a bunch of random schmucks having arguments on the internet, but there would be a strong investigative journalism interest in uncovering systematic distortions to the refereeing of Premier League games. So either we conclude that 1.) corrupt officials use their influence/resources to suppress that journalism, 2.) all media are Murdoch shills, or 3.) somehow no journalist has ever thought to ask these questions before. Dismissing all those, no one believes that there is smoke and fire to indicate a systemic problem. If that is an 'Emperor's New Clothes' situation, then I would encourage y'all to make a pitch to a newspaper editor somewhere and sell them on the fact that they have their head in the sand.
 


Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
I think that this is distorting the real issue. We're not trying to establish an answer to the question "is Murdoch a greasy fucker?" We're trying to establish whether that has an observable/measurable sporting impact. The most compelling hypothesis of how this would work seems to be that media portrayals of different players can influence referee decisions about diving/simulation. I will say, however, that when this has been brought up on the forum in the past, the suggestion is that xenophobia is at work (English saints versus foreign devils), rather a targeted operation against specific club(s). There is a far cry between those two, and that mechanism is precisely what needs to be hypothesised. Contentious penalties/non-penalties seem to be the easiest element to isolate but somehow we can't find a consistent and reliable source of that data, even though it is far easier to obtain than content analysis of thousands of hours of media.


You absolutely can control against researcher bias. The expectation can never be 100% objectivity (which has always been a convenient myth anyway), but a carefully constructed research design is meant to mitigate against researcher bias. Almost certainly there are generally agreed-upon metrics and analytical devices used for assessing bias in media reporting. Making those kinds of assessments should be neither difficult nor controversial (with the exception of that delightful section of the population that are 'post-truth'ers, but fuck them).

I would also like to push back against this idea that the research project would be so unwieldy and large that it could never be attempted. Perhaps not by a bunch of random schmucks having arguments on the internet, but there would be a strong investigative journalism interest in uncovering systematic distortions to the refereeing of Premier League games. So either we conclude that 1.) corrupt officials use their influence/resources to suppress that journalism, 2.) all media are Murdoch shills, or 3.) somehow no journalist has ever thought to ask these questions before. Dismissing all those, no one believes that there is smoke and fire to indicate a systemic problem. If that is an 'Emperor's New Clothes' situation, then I would encourage y'all to make a pitch to a newspaper editor somewhere and sell them on the fact that they have their head in the sand.
Think you are getting mixed up.

These points were only discussing the bias that exists within Murdoch controlled media.

The research project discussed was specifically to determine if that body of media are pro or anti LFC and if that is reflective of other sides (ie the norm).

This would be heavily opinion based and those opinions would be based on what the researchers believe.

A headline such as "Liverpool chasing top star in vain whilst Real are serious admirers" could be seen as negative or realistic depending on the prior beliefs of the person reading it.

That's just a headline, analysing a whole article to see if any meanings come through by reading between the lines is a bigger project.

There have also been studies regarding contentious calls in football, usually one each year.

Nobody is ignoring that and it does, often, show us to be worse effected than the norm across the league.

Especially amongst the top teams.

As towards the xenophobia the way Kane vs Sturridge are reported on, Hazard and Aguero vs Salah and Suarez to me are night and day.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
940
Think you are getting mixed up.

These points were only discussing the bias that exists within Murdoch controlled media.

The research project discussed was specifically to determine if that body of media are pro or anti LFC and if that is reflective of other sides (ie the norm).

This would be heavily opinion based and those opinions would be based on what the researchers believe.

A headline such as "Liverpool chasing top star in vain whilst Real are serious admirers" could be seen as negative or realistic depending on the prior beliefs of the person reading it.

That's just a headline, analysing a whole article to see if any meanings come through by reading between the lines is a bigger project.

There have also been studies regarding contentious calls in football, usually one each year.

Nobody is ignoring that and it does, often, show us to be worse effected than the norm across the league.

Especially amongst the top teams.

As towards the xenophobia the way Kane vs Sturridge are reported on, Hazard and Aguero vs Salah and Suarez to me are night and day.
These studies regarding contentious calls being given against us keep being cited but nobody ever provides a link to one. Do you have one ? Genuine question, not trying to score a point.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
818
@Prolix
The point that should be made is that some people recognise the biases, and ccan competently posit why those biases exist. We can also theorise that comprehensive studies in the game just might prove us right.
Keeping arguing that those views are incorrect, or pointing people to undertake research to prove their beliefs is really a moot point.
Serious question
Do you believe that Murdoch could possibly have an anti Liverpool agenda?
 



sms1986

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
2,004

Prolix

Long Time Nemesis™
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
2,947
@Prolix
[...]
Do you believe that Murdoch could possibly have an anti Liverpool agenda?
That's not the germane part of the discussion, imo:
[...]
We're not trying to establish an answer to the question "is Murdoch a greasy fucker?" We're trying to establish whether that has an observable/measurable sporting impact.
[...]
Beyond "diver" labels, I'm interested in how it is suggested that media narratives influence refereeing (or whatever other sporting factors you're saying are distorted).

I ask this question in earnest, btw. I'm not saying anything is impossible.
 

Prolix

Long Time Nemesis™
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
2,947
It was a question I asked you.
Not really an answer.
[...]
Do you believe that Murdoch could possibly have an anti Liverpool agenda?
When have I ever denied that?

I'm saying I want to be convinced that it matters on the (literal) playing field.

There's a lot of media outlets not owned by Rupert Murdoch. Is he just a convenient metonym for either conservative or London-based media? This is also an earnest question. I'm American, I have no clue of the intricacies of the North/South divide and the history there.
 



epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
940
When have I ever denied that?

I'm saying I want to be convinced that it matters on the (literal) playing field.

There's a lot of media outlets not owned by Rupert Murdoch. Is he just a convenient metonym for either conservative or London-based media? This is also an earnest question. I'm American, I have no clue of the intricacies of the North/South divide and the history there.
I think you are asking the pertinent question that nobody is answering. My take is;

There is no tangible hard evidence of an anti LFC bias in the printed media. Nobody in this thread has supplied a link to anything objective and are relying on their own perceptions and memories of what was said.

The one piece of hard impartial evidence I supplied (historical stats for sport writers player of the year) suggests a clear bias in our favour not against. Nobody is disputing this.

Nobody is disputing that Murdoch has an historical reason to dislike the club but at most he employs 10 journalists out of 400 writing about the game. Are the other 390 bias as well and if so why ? Nobody is answering this.

If Murdoch instructs them to write anti lfc bias then why don’t they a) record him telling them, it would be a massive story and they are journalists after all and then b) leave and go and work for a rival. Nobody has answered these questions

If Murdoch is pursuing an anti lfc agenda why does his tv channel employ so many ex lfc players who are notoriously partisan in our favour . Nobody is answering this.

Finally your question which I regard as the showstopper in this debate, what is the mechanism by which the refs are influenced and what evidence is there apart from one study that included deflected goals ? Nobody has answered this.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
940
@Prolix
The point that should be made is that some people recognise the biases, and ccan competently posit why those biases exist. We can also theorise that comprehensive studies in the game just might prove us right.
Keeping arguing that those views are incorrect, or pointing people to undertake research to prove their beliefs is really a moot point.
Serious question
Do you believe that Murdoch could possibly have an anti Liverpool agenda?
Why is it a moot point to ask you to provide evidence ? A moot point means it’s irrelevant. Are you saying evidence is irrelevant because you believe something so don’t need facts to back it up ?
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
818
So, research is produced, and now that is not good enough either. Because of deflected goals, which has little bearing on results.
They asked "Produce research to underpin the theories?" Done, and not good enough.

@epsomred
The moot point regards the discussion surrounding conducting the research. I doubt anyond here has the time or finances to conduct such a study, so referring to it is an irrelevance in my opinion.

Your question on ex reds as pundits has been answered. It would be strange if no ex LFC players were pundits?

@Prolix
My belief is that whilst Murdoch owns a minority within media his claws are dug deep into the mindset of how Liverpool is treated by media in general.
 



Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
818
@epsomred
Refarding the showstopper question on referees??
Are you actually reading any posts on this side of the discussion? Its a tad unfair at this point to even ask that.
 

sms1986

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
2,004
So, research is produced, and now that is not good enough either. Because of deflected goals, which has little bearing on results.
They asked "Produce research to underpin the theories?" Done, and not good enough.
It's one study for one season, though. There are further studies for other seasons that are supposedly available.

Your question on ex reds as pundits has been answered. It would be strange if no ex LFC players were pundits?
Are there many ex-Spurs players as pundits? Many ex-City? The ones I know of mainly played for teams like us and United.

Even if it was strange, wouldn't it make sense if there was an anti-LFC bias in Murdoch-owned media?
 

indianscouser

Anything But Normal
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
11,200
I'm a firm believer that decisions even out over the course of the season.
There is favouritism by the FA and refs, it's evident, and it's these small things that decide the title.
 

hugo the horrible

Ridiculously optimistic.(even more so now)
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,676
Don’t believe for a minute there is any conspiracy,incompetence by refs is pretty well world wide now.
Like to see it change but I’m not holding my breath.
Everyone feels hard done by at times in any sport,IKnow I have,but I don’t like VAR,maybe I’m old fashioned but I like it the way it has been!In the pub after the game have a whinge and forget about it.
Swings and roundabouts,
 

Alright Now

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
9,230
I'm a firm believer that decisions even out over the course of the season.
There is favouritism by the FA and refs, it's evident, and it's these small things that decide the title.
Decisions even out over the course of the season

But favoritism decides the title

Which one is it?

This is why all of us have asked you to pause and think before you post. See you Sunday.
 



epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
940
So, research is produced, and now that is not good enough either. Because of deflected goals, which has little bearing on results.
They asked "Produce research to underpin the theories?" Done, and not good enough.

@epsomred
The moot point regards the discussion surrounding conducting the research. I doubt anyond here has the time or finances to conduct such a study, so referring to it is an irrelevance in my opinion.

Your question on ex reds as pundits has been answered. It would be strange if no ex LFC players were pundits?

@Prolix
My belief is that whilst Murdoch owns a minority within media his claws are dug deep into the mindset of how Liverpool is treated by media in general.
Right I’m finally done with this thread. No more. @Quicksand you are well named as a debater, nothing is solid and one just gets inexorably dragged down grain by grain, inch by inch into a meaningless black abyss where all truths are equally valid and facts mean whatever you want to mean. We will never agree on anything. That’s me out.
 

Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
818
Right I’m finally done with this thread. No more. @Quicksand you are well named as a debater, nothing is solid and one just gets inexorably dragged down grain by grain, inch by inch into a meaningless black abyss where all truths are equally valid and facts mean whatever you want to mean. We will never agree on anything. That’s me out.
Fine by me. I joined this thread because it was confined to one area instead of the faux comedy jibes in other threads. I have done as much as I can to illustrate my beliefs. You dont agree, fine.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
940
I'm a firm believer that decisions even out over the course of the season.
There is favouritism by the FA and refs, it's evident, and it's these small things that decide the title.
 

Dane

NEXT!
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
6,598
There have been several examples, highlighted mainly by @jaffod where blatantly bad calls have gone against us.
It's not a stretch of the imagination to jump to a conclusion that "some" of the refs making these calls could be biased, bent, immoral and lacking in integrity.

The fact that no organisation with the manpower, time and funds has not compiled a detailed research article does not mean these examples did not happen.

Some people go along with the bias thing, others say those decisions are innocent incompetence.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
'








Fucking tin foil hat wearing crackpots.
 



Quicksand

Looking for Clues...
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
818
Some people go along with the bias thing, others say those decisions are innocent incompetence.
I go along with the bias thing (obviously!)
I believe that the media bias permeates into decisions. It is better to deny a Liverpool penalty than give one, because the SKY analyising will kill your future as a referee. Similarily it is better career wise to appease the Ingurland press by allowing Harry Kane to fall and get decisions. You can start placing Raheem Sterling in that Kane category now. Mo Salah, Luis Suarez and a few others are divers. Ronaldo at Utd was not a diver. Keane bullied referees at Utd without sanction. He had to admit in his book the intent on the Haaland tackle before ge was punished. Imagine if Suarez had done it.
The Spurs game at Anfield last season was poison. But better not to say it, better to keep quiet about the inequities that exist. Wenger, Mourinho or Fergie would have spouted their bile so much that decisions like that would not affect them again. Rafa tried and was publicly mocked and derided for it.
But none of this is proven and written in blood so it doesnt count as evidence.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
11,523
As an example of how media bias works and play on the minds of officials.

Klopp is one of the most charismatic, talented and respected managers in world football. He's doing a visibly good job in probably the most competitive top league in the world. Yet pieces like this are still made by Murdoch controlled media;


Salah has yet to go down under no contact but is a very difficult player to stop without fouling. Yet stories like this abound;


Officials going into games are human beings. They watch TV, they listen to the radio and they read newspapers. They even talk to friends, family and neighbours and some of those conversations will be about football. If they hear over and over that Salah dives and Klopp makes bullshit up they are going to try to be extra vigilant over being "conned"!

Otherwise they see themselves in stories like this;



And if they do allow a big call incorrectly it can directly impact their livelihood and career;


 

Dane

NEXT!
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
6,598
If the first half of the first link is anything to go by, those are absolutely cringeworthy pieces.

Sea O'Brien (whoever the fuck he is), couldn't have made his intentions any more transparent if he'd written the headline "I fucking hate Liverpool and everything about them"

But no doubt it'll all be dismissed by many on here as "banter".
 

sms1986

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
2,004
There have been several examples, highlighted mainly by @jaffod where blatantly bad calls have gone against us.
It's not a stretch of the imagination to jump to a conclusion that "some" of the refs making these calls could be biased, bent, immoral and lacking in integrity.

The fact that no organisation with the manpower, time and funds has not compiled a detailed research article does not mean these examples did not happen.

Some people go along with the bias thing, others say those decisions are innocent incompetence.
It's a mixture of bias and incompetence, it's not a black and white choice between either.
 

sms1986

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
2,004
'








Fucking tin foil hat wearing crackpots.
Bias doesn't imply a conspiracy, though, one of your links even has Klopp dismissing the conspiracy theorists.
 



Status
Not open for further replies.