The Agnew Files | “Fiercely Independent?” The Screenshot That Ended Pulse’s Credibility

Earlier this week TDMG received text messages between Josh Agnew (Pulse GM) and a Hobart Councillor who according to them said Josh “expressed his disappointment” over his reposting of recent RTIs made public.

In the messages Mr Agnew claims that his outlet is being unfairly targeted, claiming that “every other outlet does [advertising packages]”. Mr Agnew expressed his disappointment in the coverage, which has now spread to sites such as the Mercury online and in print and reaching other councillors.

“Very disappointing you’d single out the only locally-owned and independent outlet when The Mercury, Examiner and Advocate all do the same thing” – Josh Agnew

Josh also claimed that “Advertising revenue…holds the powerful to account”. When contacting Mr Agnew’s Legal representative for comments we asked him whether Pulse engages in any forms of investigative work on their platform(s), and how Pulse “Holds the powerful to account” considering the publications of examples such as Source A, Source B which provide no counterpoint, nuance or 3rd party statements. No comment was provided.

In the messages Agnew also claimed that “[people should] investigative how many hundreds of thousands of dollars they spend with every other news outlet every year” which suggests Pulse Tasmania engages in frequent or higher budget dealings with clients. We asked what was the total value (in dollars) of advertising and sponsorship packages purchased from Pulse Tasmania by the Rockliff Government (or any Tasmanian Government department/agency) for the 2024–25 and 2025–26 financial years? No response provided.

There were also claims by Agnew that “digital takeover is a product that every commercial news outlet in the state offers and sells to the government”, we asked Mr Agnew: In your Messenger exchange you stated ‘the Digital Takeover is a product that every commercial news outlet in the state offers (and sells to the gov) and that The Mercury, The Examiner, and The Advocate all do the same’ (Josh Angew, 2025). Can you name the specific “100 % share-of-voice” / “full takeover” products offered by The Mercury, The Examiner, and The Advocate that are equivalent to Pulse’s Full Digital Takeover?”

No response was provided. Mr Agnew claims that the product is offered by all commercial outlets, however he did not confirm with TDMG, the Tasmanian Times or Inquirer. TDMG is classed as a “for profit” business and we do not offer “full digital takeovers” to clients.

Following the release of RTIs we also asked Mr Agnew “Have you ever turned down or refused to run a critical story about the Rockliff Government because of existing or potential advertising contracts? 

No response provided.

The End. The Tampering of Evidence & Coordination

In a monumental revelation, TDMG has discovered alleged manipulation of public evidence, and coordination between Mr Josh Agnew and Councillor Louise Elliot.

The screenshots, provided by Twitter/X user @virtualmusing show Councillor Louise Elliot uploading an image of the Examiner’s news website to a Facebook comment section, in defence of Pulse Tasmania and the recent RTI revelations. The original screenshot uploaded by Councillor Elliot appears to be supplied by Josh Agnew, the account logged in in the top right corner named “Josh Agnew” shows that this was the case.

Quickly the comment was taken down and reuploaded with an edited image, blurring out the account name with a white overlay. Image artifacting through enhancement and alteration suggests this has occurred.

The editing (blurring Agnew’s name) raises question regarding coordination to amplify Mr Agnew’s defence regarding a potential defamation proceeding with TDMG, while deliberately obscuring an interaction with Mr Agnew. Blurring Agnew’s name could “fabricate” a false version of the original comment publication, creating misleading evidence about the comment’s origin (making it seem like Elliott’s independent discovery rather than coordinated or supplied).

Due to this information being distributed to the public, captured by a member of the public and swiftly removed with alterations, it could open up both Councillor Elliot and Mr Agnew to criminal charges and Integrity Commission probes.

Firstly, The altering, editing, or concealing of publicly available evidence it in a way that misleads others (especially in the context of a dispute or potential legal proceeding) could constitute a criminal offence under the Criminal Code Act 1924 (Schedule 1, sections 97–100) including:

• Section 97 (Fabricating Evidence) “Any person who, with intent to mislead any tribunal in any judicial proceeding, fabricates evidence, is guilty of a crime.”
• Section 99 (Suppression/Concealment) Prohibits “wilfully destroying, altering, or concealing any evidence, or anything likely to be required as evidence in any judicial proceeding.”
• Section 100 (Threats/Corruption of Witnesses) Extends to pressuring others (e.g., “encouraging” a councillor) to suppress or alter evidence.

Agnew’s supplying of information to Councillor Louise Elliot and verified interaction with Councillor Ryan Posselt could be interpreted as “lobbying” by the public, even if said actions are not actually recognised as such under Tasmanian law.

Considering a concerns notice had already been officially provided to TDMG, this could be a criminal action, and may be taken into account of any proceedings initiated by Mr Agnew/Pulse and could be reported by a member of the public to the Police as a separate matter.

Communicating with a politician to edit/share screenshots could also appear as bad faith interference in public debate. If discovered in actual proceedings (via subpoenas), such actions could be classed as “Malice” (knowing falsity/reckless disregard), damaging the Plaintiff’s standing regarding qualified privilege and acting professionally.

These actions may also qualify as “misconduct in public office” if it warps access to power (per s 11 Integrity Commission Act 2009). However the manipulation of evidence creates greater problems for Councillor Louise Elliot under the Hobart City Council CoC and Local Government Code: clause 4: “Councillors must act with integrity”.

The code covers attempts to influence government decisions, including advertising contracts and policy (e.g how government spends media dollars). Defending those contracts and getting councillors to publicly back or defend his company is direct influence on (at least) local government resource allocation and the actions of a councillor.

While Mr Agnew isn’t directly bound by the Local Government Act 1993 and local government code, he can still be charged criminally for evidence tampering and potentially face Integrity Commission scrutiny if his actions amount to aiding misconduct or instructing Councillor Elliot to alter the image.

Tasmanian Government Gives Free Run With Pulse While Allegedly Assaulting & Ghosting TDMG Journalist.

Rockliff Government and DPAC have issued no apology and no substantive response following credible allegations that a journalist was physically prevented from doing his job (and allegedly assaulted) by an individual believed to be a government media staffer at the October 2025 pro-stadium rally.

As of now there is:

• No confirmation an investigation is underway
• No identification of the individual involved
• No reply to formal requests for information from TDMG
• No apology

The contrast is stark. When questions were raised about the Rockliff Government’s $35,000+ exclusive advertising arrangements with Pulse Tasmania, DPAC and ministerial staff provided comment to The Mercury. When the same questions were put by TDMG (before the Mercury got onto the story), the government refused to comment then and has refused to comment ever since.

Pulse Tasmania owner Josh Agnew has repeatedly described his outlet as “fiercely independent” and claimed that government advertising revenue is what enables it to “hold the powerful to account”.

Yet Pulse Tasmania has published nothing about the alleged assault on a fellow journalist, nothing about the government’s continuing refusal to respond, and nothing about the starkly different treatment handed out to different media outlets.

Readers are left to draw their own conclusions about:

• why some outlets receive rapid responses and lucrative contracts while others receive silence and physical obstruction, and
• why an outlet that says it exists to “hold the powerful to account” has chosen to remain completely silent on a story that goes to the heart of government accountability and media access in Tasmania.

The pattern is now unmistakable: the same government that funds Pulse Tasmania with exclusive advertising deals is the government that has declined to explain (or even acknowledge) an incident involving one of its staff and a journalist asking questions.

Silence, selective engagement, and (as separately noted) the alleged alteration of evidence. Tasmanians deserve better from both their government and from any media outlet that claims to speak truth to power.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100079105122762

https://www.facebook.com/louiseelliothobart