spiked93%

Why shouldn’t Anthony Albanese admit he fancies Kylie Minogue? 61%

By Hugo Timms82%

7/6/2026, 12:55:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 67.9% saturation with 519 hits. Analysis detected 2,117 faulty-reasoning hits from 764 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.8% and a BS Rank of 61% (8,577 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.80% of the article peer group.

Like most politicians, Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese isn’t celebrated for his honesty. 
Yet, to prove that even the most hardened and lifeless political creatures are still human, ‘Albo’ has let his guard down. 
He has said what he really thinks and said it in plain English… He would like to sleep with Kylie Minogue. 
This unexpected admission was made on Friday, when Albanese was speaking to Australian comedian Nikki Osborne on her Bush Deep podcast. 
Albanese was asked to play a game of ‘shag, marry, date’  a sanitised variation of what most of us would know as ‘fuck, marry, kill’. 
He was offered the choice of Kylie Minogue, Nicole Kidman and entertainer Rhonda Burchmore. 
It was a sharp bouncer that, at least initially, Albanese tried to duck. 
‘I’ve just got married  I’m only six months in’, he said  probably the right answer, for both personal and political reasons. 
‘But if it goes tits up?’, Osborne asked. 
‘Kylie, clearly’, Albanese responded. 
‘You’d marry Kylie? 
And shag her? 
And date her?’, she probed. 
‘All of the above’, Albanese said. 
‘She’s terrific.’ 
For this admission  and, no doubt, the implication that he finds some women more attractive than others  Albanese has been branded a sexist. 
Popular independent MP Zali Steggall called his comments ‘entirely inappropriate’. 
‘He needs to learn to push back, to lead by example and call it out as sexist’, she said. 
A columnist in the Sydney Morning Herald condemned Albanese’s ‘garden-variety sexism’ and ‘confirmation that not as much has changed as we would like to think’. 
‘Is it not possible’, she wrote, ‘to be casual and jocular, and also respect women? 
Make non-sexual jokes?’ 
Albanese offered a swift, grovelling apology. 
‘I apologise unequivocally for the comments’, he said. 
Luckily for him, his prime ministerial duties have since taken him to Fiji, leaving his senior ministers to face the media backlash. 
They have wheeled out all of the predictable defences  that no prime minister has done more to advance the interests of women, or had a cabinet with more women  and so on. 
Surely this is an overreaction. 
Indeed, if you only read the commentary, rather than watched the interview, you might have expected Albanese to be drooling as he speculated on the ‘things he’d do’ to the Aussie songstress. 
Instead, all he did was respond honestly to an admittedly juvenile question, admitting he would like to do ‘all of the above’ with Kylie Minogue  a sentiment probably shared by many men. 
It isn’t only an overreaction  the tired, predictable outrage of the Australian commentariat is also deeply hypocritical. 
Modern politicians are constantly told to be more ‘human’. 
That is, they need to be ‘relatable’, ‘authentic’ and show that they are ‘one of us’. 
No doubt, this is why so many of them go on podcasts like Bush Deep (get it?), where the title might have been thought to have offered a clue as to the standard and nature of questions. 
And why the prime minister, sitting next to a woman with an affectedly broad Australian accent, was not only forced to answer questions about what well-known Australians he fancied, but also whether he would prefer to eat ‘shit that tastes like lollies’ or ‘lollies that taste like shit’. 
It was a humiliating spectacle. 
Albanese’s appearance on Bush Deep was an own goal in more ways than one. 
Not only did it fail to endear him to the humourless liberals who find such shows amusing  the real failure was that Albanese still came across as awkward and weird. 
Even as he was trying to be ‘normal’ and ‘relatable’ by professing his admiration for Minogue, an uncomfortable grimace broke out across his face. 
This expression, combined with his description of her as ‘terrific’, produced a mildly disturbing effect. 
In any event, it was evidence that we weren’t dealing with someone very normal at all  much like the time Keir Starmer, as he was being abused by an angry publican, offered the man a pen as he was led off. 
None of this is likely to seriously endanger Anthony Albanese’s premiership, which is at least a good thing. 
There are many reasons to be critical of his record  particularly his failure to stand up to anti-Semitism  and it is for these reasons that he should be dragged over the coals, not for his failed attempt to be funny, or normal. 
We already knew he was neither. 
Hugo Timms is a staff writer at spiked. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.9%Hugo Timms: 10.2%spiked: 8.9%Confirmation Bias11.9%This article: 2.1%Hugo Timms: 0.4%spiked: 0.5%Anchoring Bias2.1%This article: 6.2%Hugo Timms: 6.3%spiked: 4.0%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 9.4%Hugo Timms: 1.1%spiked: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.8%Hugo Timms: 0.3%spiked: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 2.0%spiked: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Hugo Timms: 10.4%spiked: 8.4%Framing Effect1.2%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.3%spiked: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.2%spiked: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.3%spiked: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Hugo Timms: 0.5%spiked: 0.9%Optimism Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 2.8%spiked: 2.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 33.5%Hugo Timms: 11.6%spiked: 13.1%Negativity Bias33.5%This article: 2.9%Hugo Timms: 1.0%spiked: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias2.9%This article: 3.1%Hugo Timms: 2.2%spiked: 2.4%Fundamental Attribution Error3.1%This article: 6.3%Hugo Timms: 0.3%spiked: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias6.3%This article: 3.4%Hugo Timms: 1.9%spiked: 3.7%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 2.8%spiked: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Hugo Timms: 0.6%spiked: 1.8%Halo Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.9%spiked: 1.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.1%spiked: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 1.6%spiked: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.2%spiked: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Hugo Timms: 3.7%spiked: 7.3%Ad Hominem6.4%This article: 4.2%Hugo Timms: 3.5%spiked: 5.0%Straw Man4.2%This article: 3.3%Hugo Timms: 2.1%spiked: 2.6%Appeal to Authority3.3%This article: 14.0%Hugo Timms: 4.1%spiked: 4.0%False Dilemma14.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 3.1%spiked: 3.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.8%Hugo Timms: 0.2%spiked: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.8%This article: 20.2%Hugo Timms: 12.2%spiked: 15.0%Hasty Generalization20.2%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.8%spiked: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.3%Hugo Timms: 1.2%spiked: 0.9%Bandwagon4.3%This article: 1.3%Hugo Timms: 7.7%spiked: 8.0%Appeal to Emotion1.3%This article: 4.5%Hugo Timms: 1.8%spiked: 2.1%Begging the Question4.5%This article: 7.7%Hugo Timms: 2.7%spiked: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.7%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.5%spiked: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.9%spiked: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.1%spiked: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.2%spiked: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 23.7%Hugo Timms: 8.1%spiked: 4.0%Anecdotal23.7%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.7%spiked: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.4%Hugo Timms: 1.0%spiked: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.0%spiked: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.1%spiked: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.5%spiked: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 0.0%spiked: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.5%Hugo Timms: 3.7%spiked: 2.5%Unattributed Quote6.5%This article: 2.7%Hugo Timms: 1.5%spiked: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.7%This article: 67.9%Hugo Timms: 26.4%spiked: 25.8%Biased Writer Voice67.9%This article: 0.7%Hugo Timms: 3.0%spiked: 3.2%Indoctrination0.7%This article: 8.5%Hugo Timms: 0.5%spiked: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.5%This article: 5.8%Hugo Timms: 5.9%spiked: 9.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Hugo Timms: 1.7%spiked: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

764 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers16%attributed speech645writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageNikki Osborne • 8 words • 0.0% coverageAnthony Albanese • 4 words • 0.0% coverageNikki Osborne • 3 words • 0.0% coverageNikki Osborne • 3 words • 0.0% coverageNikki Osborne • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAnthony Albanese • 6 words • 0.0% coverageAnthony Albanese • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageZali Steggall • 10 words • 0.0% coverageZali Steggall • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSydney Morning Herald • 25 words • 100.0% coverageSydney Morning Herald • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSydney Morning Herald • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageAnthony Albanese • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coveragespiked • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sydney Morning Herald

93%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words36% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Biased Writer Voice-80.5 ptsWriter: 80.5%Sydney Morning Herald: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+54.3 ptsWriter: 3.9%Sydney Morning Herald: 58.1%58.1%Politically Left Leaning B-10.1 ptsWriter: 10.1%Sydney Morning Herald: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%Sydney Morning Herald: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Sydney Morning Herald: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-0.8 ptsWriter: 0.8%Sydney Morning Herald: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.