“Controlled” | Tasmania’s Conservative Media Monopoly

Publisher’s Note | 28 November 2025 6:30pm
Thought Digest Media Group has received an official Concerns Notice from Pulse Media Group regarding elements of this article. In line with our editorial standards and commitment to accuracy, we are currently reviewing the material and the concerns raised.

This notice and the review process do not reflect any acceptance of error. The article remains published in the public interest while this assessment occurs.

---

The Tasmanian Liberal Party achieved what some saw as an improbable victory, clinging to minority government. The party has been in power for over 11 years and since it’s 2014 victory has consistently regressed as most incumbent governments do. However all of that changed in 2025 where the party received a positive swing towards it at a time where it has arguably faced the most resistance, policy failures and instability. But despite resistance they held onto the government and even expanded their votes share.

The opposition, Tasmanian Labor went backwards, receiving a 3% swing against it while the Parliament as a whole became more progressive.

Today we’re diving deep into what might be Australia’s biggest media conflict of interest and how Tasmania’s unique media landscape helped reshape, and ultimately weaken, what was once Australia’s strongest state Labor party while boosting Conservatives.

The Murdoch Empire In Tasmania

Originally most cities in the country were littered with newspapers. Almost every street corner you’d find a newsstand or publishing house, back then newspapers were king and the business model for said newspapers was rock solid. However all of that began to change with the rise of TV, billboards, Radio and a multitude of other technologies that ate away at both consumer and advertiser demand. Papers saw their revenue shrink each and every decade and this quickly saw many close their doors or merge

Murdoch’s News Limited quickly swooped in to buy The Mercury in the 1960s and this would prove to be a critical decision as it became the only daily newspaper in Southern Tasmania. Smaller publications like The Tasmanian Mail, The Saturday Evening Mercury (which was its own weekend edition), and a handful of local newsletters either folded or were absorbed into The Mercury’s network. While this doesn’t seem significant today you have to remember almost all local news and feature stories went through print while TV was largely limited to more summarized broadcasts and the weather. The interesting part about this is the paper was set up in Labor heartland.

Historically speaking, Hobart, New Norfolk and Queenstown were labor strongholds. The region had a heavy working-class and unionized population. The Mercury became the primary information channel for tens of thousands of voters who, until then, had mostly received news from locally owned papers with more moderate or community-driven editorial lines. Voters didn’t really have much of a choice to read the paper, all the other papers were being brought out or shut down and any left wing papers were too obscure, partisan or limited to the university. 

As a result you get what’s called a captive readership – people who disagreed with the editorial line but still depend on it for information. While this was good news for the Liberals, it had a deep, decades-long effect on the Tasmanian Labor Party, where it quickly lost its identity, cohesion and public perception. Bear in mind Labor were considered Tasmania’s natural governing party up until this point, and in 2025 you’d probably be forgiven for thinking that was never the case.

The slow end of “Labor Politics” on the Island

What crippled the Labor Party’s future chances of regaining majority government were two key events that were shaped and amplified by the media.

The first was the party’s split over the Franklin River Dam proposal in the early 1980s. This internal division pitted the pro-dam, industrial wing of Labor against its environmental and anti-dam factions. The conflict not only led to the rise of the Greens but also fractured Labor’s once-solid environmental and democratic socialist base. Crucially, this was covered by the media in a way that painted Labor as divided and out of touch with the shifting political and environmental landscape. Murdoch’s Mercury and other conservative outlets capitalized on the party’s disarray, portraying the split as a sign of instability and incompetence, further alienating key voters.

The second blow to Labor came from the 1990s to 2000s, when the party, under leaders like Field, Bacon, and Lennon, adopted more centrist, economically liberal policies in an attempt to appease the media’s framing of “responsible economic management.” This shift was largely driven by the dominant media narrative pushed by The Mercury and its conservative allies. Labor’s economic policies were often framed as weak or ineffective unless they aligned with right-wing principles. As a result, Labor leaders were only praised when they shifted to the right, while their more progressive, social-democratic initiatives were met with scorn.

As a result, Labor’s media coverage became increasingly restricted to a narrow, conservative-approved framework where any attempts to promote more left-wing policies were marginalized. The Liberal party also relentlessly attacked Labor-Green minority governments, painting them as unstable and inept, especially in economic management, and this trickled through the Mercury editorial via opinion pieces. This negative media portrayal made it difficult for Labor to advocate for its social democratic agenda, further alienating moderates and suburban voters.

The Rise of The Internet: New Players

With the rise of the internet, Tasmanians changed the way they interact with and consume the news. The Mercury had remained potent despite shrinking print, It integrated into News Corp’s digital network which provides a conservative space online. The ABC, which had largely become accessible and had broader TV content, remained a tame counterbalance to the conservative papers as it’s editorial remained quite centrist during the Federal coalition governments.

At this point, many local, community, and council newspapers (largely independent) began to collapse. Urbanization, changing readership habits, and the rise of the internet had eroded their demand. This led to some of them folding, but many experienced a very different fate.

The Rise of Lobbying Firms, Publishers

In 2019, A relatively powerful lobbying firm, Font PR began buying up small papers such as the Tasmanian Gazette, The Northern Midlands Courier, and Tasmanian Country. Font PR being a lobbying firm puts it at odds with journalism where Public relations shapes narratives and prevents leaks, journalists uncover stories and provide balance. The paper buyout was considered necessary to save failing outlets (according to Brad Stansfield), however those from Labor and The Greens were less convinced. Prof David Adams (University of Tasmania) says the entanglement of PR firms, newspapers and polling outfits should be attracting attention across the country, While ABC Media Watch’s Paul Barry called the outlet “disgraceful” for running stories regarding clients without declarations.

A key client for Font PR is the Tasmanian Liberal Party including key ministers such as Jeremy Rockliff and Eric Abetz. The owners are Brad Stansfield and Becher Townshend, Mr Stansfield being a registered Liberal Party member and former government advisor under the Hodgeman Government.

During 2023, Stansfield’s Font PR was contracted to fill in DPAC media vacancies in the Rockliff government for 6 weeks. Integrity experts dissented on the move by the government to outsource, claiming that Font/Partners had exclusive access to government information which could be of benefit to the firm’s clients. It’s also revealed that Stanfield posts various opinion pieces for his papers, showing that he regularly engages and inserts commentary.

When researching Font Publishing, We noted it is directed by Brad Stansfield with an array of journalists, however it appears to be a separate company from Font PR, and there are likely several reasons for this.

By having Font Publishing as a separate entity, they could be distancing themselves from the potential legal and ethical issues that arise when a PR firm (such as Font PR) has control over a media outlet. PR firms have a vested interest in shaping the narrative for their clients, keeping news separate can be a loophole to avoid conflicts of interest and manufacture public confidence in its impartiality. It could also serve as a way for Font PR to consolidate media ownership without drawing too much attention to how intertwined the two organizations really are. This could help avoid the appearance of monopolizing the media space while still giving the lobbying firm significant influence over public discourse.

With individuals owning a lobbying firm and multiple newspapers, there’s an often cited risk that the media coverage could be slanted to reflect the interests of the firm, rather than adhering to principles of impartial journalism. it can also empower the owners to push through policy agendas favourable to the causes they are lobbying for and suppress dissident voices.

However such concerns have been slammed and shut down before. When the Guardian reported on Font PR, Stansfield’s conflict of interests and requesting comments, he responded with the following statement:

“Your baseless assertions and imputations are rejected in the strongest possible terms. They are not only wrong, they are an insult to us, our employees, and the readers of our papers.” – Brad Stansfield, February 2025

Individuals such as Roger Hanson, a former editor of the Derwent Valley Gazette have also defended Font, claiming that it “was the only organization that saved community media here”, while News Corp and ACM rug pulled the market.

Over the course of 2 years, Font PR has had over 5 meetings with senior Liberal Ministers, and have hosted Jeremy Rockliff on their podcast. With Font Publishing being a business (i.e it needs to make money) and Brad Stansfield being a close ally & member of the Liberal Party suggests benefits could be provided in terms of advertorials and inserts which could provide unfair publicity access. However there is no evidence that such things are occurring. Also the firm’s “FontCast” has also hosted other members from different parts of the political spectrum so the organization has been open to discussion and worked towards holding a balance in their public image.

Capturing The Youth? Pulse Tasmania‘s Rise

So far the conservative establishment holds sizable control of the news through Print, radio and TV…the last missing link is young voters, and modern media…and this is where Pulse Tasmania comes in.

Pulse is a relatively new part of the media story here, founded by Josh Agnew as a radio station, the brand quickly transitioned to digital media during the Covid period and became a major player in Tasmania. Technically being the largest independent news outlet in Tasmania, it is the main source of news for young Tasmanians.

When diving deep in the outlet, a pattern that has prompted discussion about perceived political proximity to the Liberal Party. Individually all these details may not be conclusive, but together they form a pattern that raises questions and warrants at least a public discussion.

First and foremost are entries into ministerial diary records which has the outlet meeting Liberal ministers at least 2 times. 1 meeting with Rockliff a month before an election would be called from a no-confidence move, and one with Minister Abetz a year ago.

While ministerial meetings are not inherently problematic, private or repeated meetings can raise questions about preferential access. If an outlet is regularly meets with ministers, it could give the impression that the outlet has a closer or more favorable relationship with that party. This can undermine the outlet’s perceived objectivity, leading the public to question whether the coverage is balanced or influenced by those meetings. It’s also the only outlet to do this, The Tasmanian Inquirer, Times, TDMG and other outlets have not met with ministers.

It had been confirmed from RTI revelations, and active disclosures on ministerial diarys that outlets such as the mercury also have off-record meetings.

In Pulse’s concerns notice over our article, the group claimed that they equally meet with politicians on all sides of the political spectrum including the Labor opposition. When TDMG approached an Anonymous Tasmanian Labor politician implied that Pulse does not meet with the Labor Party and asked to check in with Pulse on “which MPs they meet with regularly?”. It has not been confirmed officially that the party does not meet with Pulse.

Pulse’s Posts And Their Reporting Style

After analysing their posts, TDMG has observed that Pulse Tasmania’s election coverage raises concerns over potential patterns that aligned with Liberal messaging. For example, Pulse published an article highlighting Rockliff’s new tattoo (a flannel flower symbolizing mental health and resilience) as a personal story connecting him to community values. Posts like these appear out of place and strange for an outlet to be covering, especially considering other political leaders did not receive the same publicity or attract the curiosity of the outlet.

A post of major concern (and a flagship in this investigation) is titled “‘Red hot angry’ public turning on Labor after no-confidence vote, Abetz says”, we’ll try and keep this short but this post almost has single-source reliance on one subject…Eric Abetz. After analysing the post we noticed it:

• Included no quotes from Labor
• No independent expert context
• No verification of claims
• No neutral explanation of events beyond Abetz’s framing
• No attempt or any form of counterpoint from the outlet (other pollsters, expert commentary etc)

What this means is that Pulse effectively platformed one party’s narrative with little substantial transformations (even if unintentionally) which is unusual for a news outlet. Pulse also displayed their own poll with Abetz referencing it. First using an informal social platform like Facebook which could yield unreliable results…how many people were Tasmanian? how many were registered to vote? which electorates? how do we know these responses were not bots or liberal/indie supporters? why wasn’t this disclosed in the post? In addition the poll was generated in house, and not commissioned by another firm such as EMRS or DemosAU

Pulse does nothing to address this, rather leaving it in to support Abetz argument without counterpoint (either intentionally or unintentionally). There were also 3 new polls at the time and Pulse did not acknowledge them at all in that post. However Pulse has used different polling figures throughout the year.

looking deeper into this article over 44% of it was pure statements from Eric Abetz (that’s 4 in 10 words), ~205 Abetz words (direct quotes) while ~150 words of narrative Abetz/Liberal framing. In total the article is purely 76% Liberal Messaging, the rest filler or historical context.

Out of fairness, pulling up a recent Labor article has the exact same problem. A large portion of lines in this article are direct quotations attributed to Josh Willie, with absolutely no counterarguments or 3rd party commentary.

In these examples, Pulse’s problem appears to be a lack of editorialising and essentially syndicating content released by the major parties, rather than adding substance.

During the election campaigns we also discovered a variety of photos of Liberal Leader Jeremy Rockliff, some taken by the Liberal Party/DPAC which are in principal designed to amplify the party’s messaging (even if done unintentionally by Pulse). Political images in general are often crafted to evoke specific emotions, convey strength or competence, or shape public perception in subtle ways.

If we compare these photos to news posts generated by Pulse, we can see some are from the LPA, while some are licensed or taken by in-house photographers. However a quantity of photos present originate from the Liberal Party which has the side effect (whether intended or unintended) of syndicating the party’s message and being a conduit rather than providing impartial coverage.

Mr Agnew defended any claims of using photos intentionally, quoting that many outlets use them and does not try to frame leaders in certain ways “in-house”.

The general manager and owner of Pulse, Josh Agnew, has also received endorsements/public acknowledgements from Liberal figures such as Aldo Anatoli, however this is framed around business success rather than anything political in nature.

When Pulse responded to this point, they claimed the meeting between Aldo and himself was about  “[Aldo’s] role as General Manager of Crime Stoppers Tasmania, an organization of which Pulse is the official media partner”. However looking at the post directly it has nothing to do with what Josh claimed, and reinforces our point.

Officially, Josh’s personal political beliefs are not publicly known. However, an examination of his X (formerly Twitter) account shows that he has predominantly reposted content related to Coalition and Liberal Party news here in Tasmania, while much of the other content doesn’t seem to have a pattern and appears random.

Another connection we’ve discovered from internal sources is that Josh Agnew is friends with members of the youth wing of the Liberal Party, including a Tasmanian political staffer Harrison Grafanakis who has appeared on Sky News. The staffer holds close ties to the likes of Senator Johnno Duniam and Eric Abetz, the latter holding a meeting with Pulse late last year. We’ve been asked to keep this source confidential.

Pulse Tasmania has also done social media collaborations [USC ice bucket challenge] with Premier Jeremy Rockliff. While this challenge was done on advocacy grounds, a news outlet technically collaborated with a politician, which is generally frowned upon in the industry. The nomination was also recommended by a Liberal Party member and not the general public, which technically classes it as a staged event. Pulse has also done “collaborations” with Labor Opposition leader Josh Willie and the Premier again on November 15th part of “McHappy Day 2025”, however Josh when responding to this article claimed an additional collaboration on October 15th, but TDMG could not find proof that this occurred.

View this post on Instagram

There is also significant coverage and/or advertising for sports such as Basketball and the Tasmanian JackJumpers, something which has had political involvement from the major parties (not implying that Pulse has had such involvement). While we haven’t seen such things regarding the stadium, The effect of Pulse’s reporting could appear to be a reinforcement of pro-Liberal narratives, which raises questions about neutrality.

In one of Pulse’s latest post we’ve observed language which could be interpreted as overly hostile to the “anti-Stadium” movement while being sympathetic to pro stadium rhetoric. Here are some of the platform’s most recent remarks:

“…protest organisers [said] that there were upwards of 6,000 people at the rally, before police set the record straight this afternoon”

[Saying the police “set the record straight” is inaccurate and misleading, because no official or agreed-upon attendance figure exists. While police provided their own estimate, the numbers remain disputed, so the outlet shouldn’t imply the issue has been definitively resolved.]

Moreover, 3 posts regarding the stadium published since November 23rd 2025 have uncritically repeated Rockliff’s line about ‘shutting down claims of a 6,000 crowd size.’ From a journalistic standpoint, this repetition reinforces a single viewpoint or political narrative (whether intentional or not). It suggests an alignment with a particular agenda rather than independent reporting.

When doing thorough research of Pulse’s coverage of the stadium, we noticed that of all the posts made between November 3rd and November 27th (nearly a month) over 14 stories had a pro stadium bias (either due to a lack of counterpoint, alternative arguments), while only 5 posts were critical or anti stadium. 1 post ended up being neutral and only 1 article in the 20 published in this period had any semblance of counterpoints, or comparison of arguments.

In case pulse deletes or amends any of these stories, we have compiled them in this google drive for you to review.

On a separate note the development of the stadium would be beneficial to Pulse as it would provide the outlet (and other organizations) another potential client (whether that’s the Tasmanian Devils, Mac Point stadium events etc), so while TDMG is not suggesting they are advocating for said team or stadium, it would be financially beneficial if the stadium and team went ahead as it is in their financial interests to acquire more advertising clients and grow revenue streams.

Since the passing of the Macquarie point stadium on December 4th 2025, Pulse Tasmania announced later in the month it will be expanding it’s team, potentially linked to the now highly anticipated stadium.

Looking into Pulse’s comments section also shows people who criticize the outlet for being a “Liberal mouthpiece” “conservative” and other claims of it being biased. This suggests there is growing public dissent over Pulse’s reporting.

A final pointer directs us to Pulse Media Group (the company behind Pulse Tasmania), which according to their website has worked with clients such as the Tasmanian Government and McDonalds for advertising (both which have LPA connections). While this might not appear problematic outright, it’s a conflict of interest which can put pressure on the outlet to cover the government and clients more favourably, and for journalists to self censor.

How Pulse & The State Government Engage With Eachother

---

Cross Connections between Pulse, Font and the Tasmanian Government.

Following the concerns notice issued by Pulse, we have been notified by an anonymous individual regarding connections with Pulse Media Group, Font PR and Tasman Public Affairs.

We discovered another lobbying firm “Tasman Public Affairs” where we identified that Brad Nowland is a partner. The integrity commission includes a lobbying register which also lists clients. One of those clients is Pulse Media Group as well as other organisations such as the JackJumpers and TCCI.

According to their website & Linkedin description, Tasman Public Affairs (TPA) provides strategy and outcomes for clients navigating complex political, media and stakeholder environments. Primary focuses include Government Relations, Media & Political Engagement, Issues & Crisis Management, Campaign Direction and Stakeholder Consultation.

While it is easy to assume Pulse Media Group may engage TPA in these areas, the scope and specifics of any engagement are not publicly disclosed, and no conclusions regarding influence, bias, or editorial decisions should be inferred from these connections alone.

Considering the firm being established recently, it suggests that Pulse Media Group is a new client. Researching Brad Nowland confirms that he is a former partner of Font PR, and was Deputy Chief-of Staff for the Hodgman Liberal Government in 2018. Mr Nowland was also Press Secretary for Premier Will Hodgman, and during his time as opposition leader (2008 and 2014).

TDMG has also observed that Josh Agnew has connections to the following individuals on Linkedin, however we do highlight that as journalists, having these connections are not inherently problematic and are often used to check out what public figures are up to and can be useful for when sourcing info for stories.

Josh Agnew Connected Individuals (Viewable) Linkedin 29/11/2025 @ 12:30PM

• Brad Stansfield (Font PR)
  Becher Townshend (Font PR)
  Edwin Johnstone (LPA Member/Candidate)
  James Whiteley (Senior Media Advisor to Premier Jeremy Rockliff)
  Pete Coulson (Former Tasmanian Liberal Party President)
  Simon Behrakis (Former Member for Clark, LPA Member)
  Natasha Miller (LPA Member, SRT Logistics)
  Jane Howlett MLA (LPA)
  Jeremy Rockliff MLA (LPA)
  Kerry Vincent MLC (LPA)
  Hon Peter Gutwein (LPA)
  Dean Young (Former Liberal Member for Franklin)
  Stephanie Dalton (Media Advisor Department Premier & Cabinet)
  Eric Abetz MLA (LPA)
  Felix Ellis MLA (LPA)
  Nicolas Duigan MLC (LPA)
  Corey Mingari (LPA)
  Vince Taskunas (Jane Howlett MLA Chief of Staff)
  Hon Will Hodgman (Former Liberal Premier of Tasmania)
  Rachel Burke (Communications Manager AFL Tasmania)
  Jessica Sargent (Former Media Advisor to the Premier)
  

With these individuals listed, we can observe that Josh has extensive connections to Members of the Liberal Party, associated members or previously mentioned organisations such as Font PR. However this does not imply said connections interfee with the professional standards of Pulse Tasmania, and can in fact be beneficial as it provides easy access for outlets when covering stories.

We do not allege this implies any editorial bias but highlight a lack of public information regarding Labor, Greens or Independent connections other than Dean Winter MP. We invite Pulse/Josh Agnew to disclose connections on Linkedin or other platforms to confirm if they have a substantial network with Tasmanian Labor, Greens or independents.

---

Government Resources, Resourced

The last player on this growing media oligopoly is that the Department of Premier and Cabinet itself, which has expanded over the years, both in staffing and resources. According to MPS October 2024-2025, there are over 16 FTE in the DPAC media team alone (including ministerial media), with at least another 10-20 (including electorate officers and advisors) who are either required to produce social media/public content or have some role in public relations. This puts the total up to 29-39 Government employees who’s focus is to shape the public narrative. The Labor opposition likely having a much smaller media capacity, and potentially relies upon Union organizations and other groups. TDMG does not have publicly available figures to determine Labor or Green’s media/PR capacity.

Using salary calculations alone, we’ve determined the government is spending at least $2.05 million dollars to convince the public of their policies, however if we include additional roles (electorate officers, advisors) the figure could jump to $4-8m. Conducting further investigations reveals that the State Government spent over $57.8 Billion last year spread across TV, radio, newspapers and digital outlets through RTI requests, however the spend distributed through agencies and salary fees could suggest the figure being much higher.

The Problems That Exist, And Those That Don’t

If we talk about some of the problems and concerns that arise because of this, one of the most commonly cited examples in Australia is that a concentrated market of any kind often results in higher prices for consumers, and in this case limited access to information. In this example it often means one side of the debate is voiced and it can be bad for democracy. It means opposition parties struggle to get their voice out in the media which is crucial for mainstream support.

However media conglomerates might argue that owning a significant portion of the media landscape allows them to achieve economies of scale. This would, in theory, help keep costs lower and allow them to continue providing news and services where otherwise, smaller outlets might fail due to insufficient resources or demand.

With the rise of the ABC’s digital presence in Tasmania mitigates some of the effects that occur in a thin market. Consumers also do have choice and the forces that own Print, Radio and TV are separate companies competing in separate industries. But it’s mostly a choice of industry rather than a choice of news or product, When it comes to the structure and bias of the news we consume then there is less choice. Consumers might feel they’re picking different products, but the underlying ideological framing is similar.

However despite the negativity that corporate media receives, it does cover news that is often missed or dropped by public broadcasters due to being driven by financial incentives. This should also mean higher quality journalism and a wide range of stories. However the range of stories is generally limited to what generates a return and what doesn’t. So for a profit newsroom investigative stories (like these) which don’t imminently grab headlines fail to reach the public.

It’s also worth mentioning there are major costs and output hurdles for smaller outlets which can make things such as consistency, reliability and speed poor compared to larger outlets. A smaller newsroom simply does not have the resources, income or the staff to produce the same outflow of content.

But what all this means in practice is that smaller outlets struggle. We made the decision earlier this year not to compete in  the Tasmanian Market and relocate operations to the mainland because it’s too concentrated and has minimal potential for growth. While Tasmania is naturally a very “thin market” (limited or spread out buyers/sellers), the issues outlined before make it impossible to compete in traditional news forms. For context, over the last 365 days on YouTube, 99.35% of our growth came from the mainland or overseas, only 0.65% of our audience are Tasmanian.

The other problem with the market is smaller outlets are often sidelined or blacklisted by major political parties. We can confirm that the Tasmanian Inquirer and Thought Digest Media have been blacklisted or are currently blacklisted by the Liberal Party, especially regarding interviews, press conferences and investigative works. We can also say that during our startup phase, members within the Liberal party approached our outlet and attempted to pull concessions (such as the party providing their own questions) in exchange for interviews. This behavior would not occur in a competitive market.

The Next Steps

So what happens next? Well there isn’t much we can do to change the situation other than try to be impartial and uncover stories. But with very little government transparency, powerful companies and a social media algorithm to appease it’s extremely difficult to do anything. But as a consumer you can do something about it.

You could diversify your news sources to other outlets such as our friends at the Tasmanian Inquirer and Tasmanian Times. We also recommend you include us in your news feed to stay up to date with alternative news. We also suggest you support LINA newsrooms. LINA (the Local and Independent News Association) is a collection of free and independent outlets across Australia, you can check their website and find out who’s a member and what different outlets do.

---

Disclaimers and Public Disclosures:

Thought Digest Media Group, Heath Clark and other members affiliated with TDMG have not received funding or have provided concessions for any gains to lobbying firms, political entities or any other groups. We remain financially and editorially independent.

---

Bibliography:

https://font-publishing.paperturn-view.com/book-fontpub?pid=MTQ148911&p=5&v=31

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-13/font-public-relations-firm-buys-tasmanian-regional-papers/11305680

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/02/font-public-relations-derwent-valley-gazette-sorell-times-ntwnfb#img-1

https://tasmanianinquirer.com.au/news/comment-tasmanian-liberal-government-blocks-journalists-from-media-conferences/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-01/font-pr-to-fill-gap-in-tas-government-communications-team/102546728

https://tasmanianinquirer.com.au/news/tasmanian-liberal-premier-rejects-voluntary-disclosure-of-donations-before-polling-day/

https://tasmanianinquirer.com.au/news/tasmanian-government-accused-of-blatant-pork-barreling-over-450000-grant-before-legislative-council-election/

Elite Cartel corruption in Tasmania – the nature of the game

https://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/rti/MPS_routine_disclosure_log

https://www.linkedin.com/company/pulsemg/about/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/tasman-public-affairs/

https://www.tasmaniancountry.com/newspaper/tasmanian-country/2024-tasmanian-political-scorecard

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1innnVPlDo7ixXpgxG_UrXMRJP97NcSIl?usp=sharing

https://lobbyists.integrity.tas.gov.au/register/font-public-relations

https://lobbyists.integrity.tas.gov.au/register/tasman-public-affairs

Source 1: Anonymous Tasmanian Liberal Member

Source 2: Anonymous Tasmanian Government Employee

Source 3: Anonymous Tasmanian Labor Politician

---

TDMG’s Response to Pulse Tasmania/Josh Agnew Legal Threat [27/11/2025]

On 27/11/2025 Thought Digest Media Group received an informal (self written) legal notice from Josh Agnew, The GM and Owner of Pulse Media Group. This notice claimed a range of inaccuracies and interpretations.

For a copy of the original notice, please click here

In this report we review some of the claims made by Mr Agnew and our response to each of them:

1) “Incorrect Assertions of Political Bias”

TDMG has not, nor will ever suggest that an outlet or another news organization is politically influenced or biased unless we have concrete evidence that confirms that. If there is no direct evidence we will not claim such bias or leaning until we hold such evidence. In our article “Controlled” TDMG identified over 10 points of circumstantial evidence on Pulse which suggests there is a “potential” for an environment of said actions to occur, however TDMG has not accused Pulse of doing said actions without evidence.

2) Ministerial Meetings – Material Omissions

Pulse claims that TDMG ignored other outlets that have allegedly met with government ministers. As of 27/11/2025 there are currently 3 records of “news organisations” (or businesses directly associated with news organizations).

Pulse Tasmania [INCLUDED]
Font PR [INCLUDED]
News Corp [NOT INCLUDED].

News Corp was not included due to being outside the scope of our investigation timeframe which solely focused on Pulse Tasmania and Font PR between 1st November 2024 and 27th November 2025. News Corp has also been thoroughly covered by the Tasmanian Times and Inquirer, the goal of TDMG was to continue investigating on new leads, rather than established public knowledge.

Part of Pulse’s response was that they also “regularly meet” with members of the opposition, minor parties and independents “in the same manner as every other newsroom”. Firstly, very few newsrooms meet with politicians (TDMG, TT and TI don’t), so claiming that every one newsroom does is false. Today TDMG approached an anonymous Labor MP source who implied that Pulse Tasmania does not meet with the Tasmanian Labor Party, and asked to check in with Pulse on “which MPs they meet with regularly”. Said source also commented that Mr Agnew “was having a cup of coffee with Liberal Minister Eric Abetz yesterday morning” according to their sources.

TDMG has approached Independent and Minor Party sources to confirm with them if they have met with Pulse (at all or regularly), and are waiting for a response from them. Said groups (unlike government ministers) are not required to provide a response or log such meetings so we may not know unless members voluntarily confirm.

As with many parts of their response they have failed to provide ANY evidence while accusing us of having no evidence on the points raised.

Pulse claims that we deliberately omitted these meeting “entries” mentioned before, this is false. As a news outlet we adhere to principles set out by the APC and other standards authorities, TDMG engages in genuine research and covers a diverse range of political and economic matters.

3) Mischaracterisation of Editorial Use of Imagery

Pulse: “You allege that Pulse publishes photographs designed to evoke emotion or portray political figures in a particular light. This is incorrect.”

TDMG: Pulse publishes photos that evoke emotion or portray figures in a particular light whether unintentionally or intentionally, This claim is supported by the use of Liberal Party photos or photos taken from staged events. However we do not accuse Pulse of doctoring or manipulating photos or if said actions were deliberate, instead we highlighted the risks of disseminating manufactured and staged photos.

While other outlets have taken similar photos, Pulse Tasmania has disseminated a larger quantity of photos, and more photos of Liberal MPs than Labor. However part of this could be due to the sheer quantity of posts the outlet produces compared to The Mercury.

4. Election Coverage and Equal Representation

Pulse: “Your claim that Pulse published Liberal policy proposals without affording equal opportunity to other parties is incorrect.”

TDMG: This is an outright false claim from Pulse, TDMG never alleged that Pulse discriminated against the Labor party or minors and never claimed that they were not provided equal opportunities or policies at all.

5. Incorrect Interpretation of Public Social Media Posts

“You refer to a Facebook post by Aldo Anatoli, described in your article as a “Liberal figure”, acknowledging my work. This post related solely to his role as General Manager of Crime Stoppers Tasmania, an organisation of which Pulse is the official media partner. The post was not political in nature and had no relevance to any political party or activity.”

Our Statement:

The Actual Post:
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=744359954861927&set=a.116748094289786

Lest we say? How did you get this so wrong??

“Your claim that I have “predominately reposted Coalition or Liberal Party content” on social media is also inaccurate.”

TDMG: half of the stuff you reposted related to the liberal party (Rockliff, Gutwein, Federal), the other half are a random assortment of posts.

Josh Agnew: “My Twitter reposts consist almost entirely of my own work and that of other journalists or photographers in Tasmania.”

TDMG: you only take photos of Liberal members and one shot of crossbench MPs?

6. Personal Associations and Misleading Implications

Pulse: “Your article references claims that I am “friends with members of the youth wing of the Liberal Party” and implies that such personal associations influence Pulse’s editorial decisions.”

TDMG: Harrison Grafanakis admitted to being friends with you both to an anonymous Liberal party source and myself, We don’t need to keep searching for proof or back up this claim (unless you want this screengrab of you following relevant accounts). This claim is correct.

TDMG never claimed that this connection was more than a friendship, or that it means “special political connections” or “collusion”. but rather another piece of circumstantial evidence, added to the list.

Josh Agnew: “Like many journalists and media managers, I maintain professional and social relationships with people across the political spectrum. Tasmania is a small community, and it is common – and often unavoidable – for individuals working in public-facing fields to know one another personally. These relationships have no bearing on Pulse’s editorial output, nor do they influence our reporting.

Editorial decisions at Pulse are based solely on news merit, not personal associations.”

TDMG: while that is a claim we cannot confirm nor deny it will remain just that…unverified unless opposition and crossbench sources prove that (which TDMG has not seen or heard). 

Professional and Social Relationships with political figures (or involved individuals) can raise questions especially with repeated cases from one side. But it does not prove anything and we have no intention of claiming anything about Pulse Tasmania unless holding concrete proof.

7. Incorrect Statement Regarding Social Media Collaborations

Pulse: “Your assertion that Pulse has collaborated on social media only with the Liberal Premier and not with other parties is factually incorrect.”

Pulse regularly publishes Instagram collaboration posts featuring community, human-interest and charity stories involving MPs across the political spectrum. Recent Instagram collaborations with Labor Leader Josh Willie on 10 October and 15 November demonstrate this clearly.”

TDMG: This is the first and only claim which Pulse Tasmania have got (partially) correct and we withdraw this claim from our article effectively immediately, this was missed when attempting to filter through social media posts and reels where TDMG only observed political collaborations on “instagram reels”. When scrolling instagram this post was likely missed as it was either not made at the time of our early investigation in October 2025 or was skimmed past in the last few weeks. TDMG can verify that Pulse Has collaborated with Labor Leader Josh Willie on November 15, however there is no proof of any collaboration with Josh Willie or other politicians on October 10th 2025 (on Instagram Reels, Posts, Facebook or website). We invite Pulse to confirm this second collaboration (did they get a date wrong?). 

8. Community Support and Sports Coverage

Josh Agnew: “Pulse supports Tasmanian community groups, charities and sporting organisations, including the JackJumpers, just as other news outlets do. These activities are apolitical and community-focused.”

TDMG: We have never accused Pulse of politicising the Tasmanian Jack Jumpers, or have any claims that they have engaged in such behaviour. In this statement Pulse has not provided evidence that the industry as a whole is not politicized. During 2020-2023 Peter Gutwein, as well as other Liberal, Labor and crossbench members advocated for Tasmania receiving it’s own Basketball team. “Political involvement”, “Political association” or “Political intersection” might be more correct terms, but politics was involved in the development of this program regardless. A $15 million investment was made for the Jackjumpers high performance training facilities in 2022 and we can also provide additional government resource on additional measures taken as well materials viewable on Labor and Liberal facebook pages:
https://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/87131/Tasmania-JackJumpers-High-Performance-Training-Centre-Infrastructure-Tasmania-final.pdf

9. Stadium Coverage – Incorrect Claim of “Pro-Liberal Narrative”

Pulse Tasmania: “Your claim that Pulse adopted a “Pro-Liberal narrative” regarding the stadium project is false.”

TDMG: We do not claim that Pulse adopted a pro liberal or stadium narrative, rather that it used language which can be perceived as hostile towards opposite narratives. (just a note, if your language is too ambiguous, wishy washy or can be interpreted to different groups its not a great look).

Josh Agnew: “Pulse has consistently provided balanced coverage of arguments both for and against the project. Further, the stadium is supported by both major parties, with the most recent Lower House vote passing 25 to 9. It is therefore inaccurate to characterise coverage of a bipartisan project as evidence of partisan bias.”

TDMG:

Our reporting has neither confirmed nor denied Pulse’s claim. Rather, we have highlighted the general risks of partisan reporting without asserting that Pulse is, in fact, being partisan. In its response, Pulse appears to assume that coverage of a ‘bipartisan project’ cannot exhibit bias, but bipartisan support does not inherently preclude the possibility of biased reporting

Josh Agnew: “You rely on three Instagram posts that contain the same comment from the Premier, which when examined, are all from the same day and are derived from a single website article.”

TDMG: These three posts were made separately. As an outlet, Pulse shouldn’t be limited to just 1 quote from one source (did you ask Labor, The greens or independents on the crowd size and their remarks on the protest?), you also used language like “set the record straight” and other variations in posts, we warn Pulse not to imply figures are set in stone when only estimates were provided from different parties. 

10. Advertising

Pulse: “Your assertion that Pulse’s advertising relationships create a conflict of interest that influences editorial coverage is incorrect.

Pulse’s commercial partnerships have no bearing on our journalism. We regularly publish critical reporting about organisations that also advertise with us.”

TDMG: We have not accused Pulse Tasmania’s advertising relationships of having a conflict of interest in regards to advertising. We have stated the concerns in the industry (such as on broadcast and print) of potential conflicts which can undermine journalistic standards when working with said partners.

If we had proof of this we would accuse you, if we didnt or had contrary sources we would have defended. It’s quite clear.

Josh Agnew: “This advertising model is identical to that used by every commercial news outlet in Tasmania – including The Mercury, The Examiner, 7 Tasmania and WIN. Failing to acknowledge that every commercial newsroom operates under comparable arrangements is misleading. Without advertising revenue, Pulse would not be able to provide freely accessible local news.”

TDMG: Your claim is wrong, Outlets operate under varying revenue structures such as the Mercury with paywalls, 7 West Media with channel adverts and hybrid options (product placements etc). Our outlet for example operates free content funded by advertisers using adsense, sponsorships from companies and organisations as well as a combination of Merch, Paid magazines and donations. The Tasmanian Times also relies on donations and advert revenue. To claim “commercial newsrooms operate under comparable arrangements” is misleading.

TDMG does not believe it was required to include other outlets when we were outlining the risks as a whole, which were not targeted to you.

---

TDMG Acknowledges that Pulse Tasmania only got 0.5/10 Claims correct.

It’s a requirement of the Defamation Act that a plaintiff be able to demonstrate serious harm to their reputation, for an article that got less than 1.3k views on news outlet that regularly reaches 150,000 people each week we’re going to have to see real evidence of harm and damage. Pulse Tasmania will need to quantify such harm in a formal Notice of Concern within 30 days of publication.

For a copy of the original notice, please click here