Last week we had a 'debate' between Albo and Dutton on Sky news.
the Sky after dark pundits all said Dutton won easily however the audicience made up of undecided voters believed otherwise. ( We must state there were a lot of people who said neither).
So the Sky after dark pundits immediately said the undecided voters were not undecided at all but essentially a biased audacious favouring the ALP.
There was absolutely no evidence for their assertions. Please note a couple of things. Firstly debates rarely determine elections. Secondly who 'won' a 'debate' is merely an opinion. Thirdly Sky news paid a polling firm to have an audience of 100 undecided voters.
It never occured to the Sky after dark pundits that their view was biased because they want the LNP to win the election. It thus also never occurred to them that they not the audience got it wrong. The problem here would be losing any reputation when ti some to politics!
When you are as old as I am you have seen this before. in 1984 Hawke 'debated ' Peacock and I still remember Paul Kelly waxing lyrically on Hawke had bested Peacock. the only problem was when polls later found the complete opposite. This again found no mea culpa on Kelly's part. He , like the Sky after dark clowns, knew better than the punters.
Oh dear the times simply never change.