Democracy & Transparency

Frequency Change: From Journalism to Politics, Government Media Revealed

Published

4 months ago

December 14, 2025

Heath Clark

Changed Frequencies From Journalist to Government Staffer

Journalism is generally regarded as a field that provides both impartial coverage and holds power to account, but what has been a relatively common theme across the nation sees journalists skip professions to groups that often do the exact opposite…to defend power and their client’s interest. While it is no secret that this crossover exists, it might be worth exploring to understand how Tasmania’s media establishment operates.

When researching, TDMG looked at employment figures from DPAC and observed 21 (18 FTE) media-related roles, with a further 14 if we include electorate officers (who often have partial media responsibilities) with the government theoretically employing up to 35-40 people capable of “media related roles”. After doing thorough research TDMG was able to identify 19 media staff at DPAC through a Liberal Party leak, public records and cross referencing with Linkedin.

a list of the Tasmanian Government Media Team from November 2025. identifying at least 10 people who were involved in journalism. — DPAC Media Team as of 14/12/2025 | Source: TDMG/Linkedin

TDMG determined 10 out of the 21 identified media staffers to have been journalists or involved in the news industry. An industry source claims at least 3-4 of the 21 staffers are former Tasmanian journalists. However when TDMG investigated we found at least 7.

A list of all current members of the DPAC media unit, including senior and junior advisors, many of whom former journalists.

Paul Carter – Editor | News Corp, APP, BBC
Patrick Tilley – Bachelor’s of Journalism (no public industry experience) (TAS)
Trent Dann – Journalist/Presenter | 7 News, Network 10 (TAS)
Carla Howarth – Journalist | ABC News (TAS)
Sarah Aquilina – Journalist | The Examiner (TAS)
Tarlia Jordan – Journalist | 7 News (TAS)
Trudy Brown – Production Editor | NewsCorp (QLD)
Josh Goodyer – Camera Operator | Network 10, SCA (TAS)
Stephanie Dalton – Journalist | ACM, News Corp, Network 10 (TAS)
Michael Saunders – Reporter | ABC News (QLD)

What this shows the public is a clear crossover between journalism and the government sector, especially with local outlets such as 7 Network, News Corp and Network 10.

When journalists first enter the industry they are trained to question claims, interrogate power and act in the public interest. However when switching over as a staffer their role focuses on defending ministers, controlling narratives and advancing their client’s interest.

The government also has a chilling effect on current journalists, where many often know former colleagues personally, may rely on them for access or anticipate future career crossovers themselves. This can subtly discourage aggressive reporting, even without explicit pressure. It results in a form of soft restraint, not censorship. a dynamic that is made more pronounced in Tasmania’s tight media market.

Even when these individuals act ethically and have genuine reasons for career changes, crossovers can create public suspicion of aligned interests and doubts about independence. When a journalist leaves the industry to work for PR or the government it also means newsrooms lose valuable skills and resources which puts pressure on an already thin media market in Tasmania and gives the government the upper hand.

Over time, this can produce a revolving-door system in which private companies or departments such as DPAC absorb the most experienced journalists, while newsrooms are left to continually train new staff. The result is an imbalance of expertise, with those in power better resourced to manage narratives than those tasked with scrutinising them.

A graph that represents the increase of government media staff since 2016. — Expansion of the Government’s media team visualized | Source: TDMG/Internal

Government Media Expansionism

According to our own data and information from Luke Edmunds MLC reveals that DPAC’s media team has expanded by 25% since March 2025, the figure originally 14.4 FTE. However over the last 4 years it is estimated to have grown by 90-120% despite rapid AI developments and rise of digital workflow efficiency which would likely see the team shrink. DPAC media had the biggest growth out of all the teams in DPAC.

What a rapidly growing media unit means is more press releases, more curated images, more pre packaged narratives while newsroom resources remain static or decline. This creates a form of structural imbalance where messaging capacity grows faster than the capacity to interrogate it.

A larger media team also gains more power where it can reduce transparency and spontaneity in public communication. A department that has more resources has more leverage against both the media and political competitors.

The expansion, as highlighted by Mr Edmunds also puts into question government efficiency, raising questions on the government about role duplication, necessity and whether public funds are being used primarily for information or persuasion.

Casual Relationships and Slipping Boundaries

What was most concerning when investigating DPAC was that we identified instances where media staffers supplied images to outlets such as Pulse where outlets used personal attributions rather than from DPAC or other government sources itself.

A recent example of image attributions by Pulse Tasmania being used incorrectly. — a recent example of attributions being incorrectly used | Source: Pulse Tasmania/Screengrab

While this does not constitute a major breach in itself, it collapses the professional boundary between institutional communication and personal office relationships. It also blurs whether materials were officially sanctioned, selectively shared, or provided through informal private connections.

Tasmanian kids encouraged to read more with Premier’s reading challenge – Pulse Tasmania Download

In practice, this can make images appear to have been sourced independently or taken by the outlet, when in fact they were supplied by a partisan actor. Even if unintentional, this risks misleading audiences about provenance and undermines informed media consumption. While members of the public could theoretically research the individual named in an attribution, most do not, and would reasonably assume the material was independently sourced from a regular journalist.

More examples of incorrect and a correct attribution used by Pulse Tasmania.

We note that James Whitely has appeared in our investigation before regarding RTIs on Pulse’s advertising deals with the government. The communications between Mr Whitely and Pulse suggests a very relaxed relationship and raises questions about professional boundaries, and if Pulse is receiving special access compared to other outlets.

Pulse-Media-Engagement Download

What is proven by the RTI and images supplied is that there is in fact an established relationship between James (The Premier’s Senior Media Advisor), and Pulse, and that the premier’s office has supplied them images on multiple occasions. This confirm that Pulse has repeatedly relied on material directly sourced from government, raising legitimate questions around the appearance of close alignment with the Premier’s office that have already been expressed multiple times in this investigation.

This pattern suggests asymmetric access, where outlets benefit from relationships rather than editorial need, marginalising smaller or more critical media. It also risks normalising advertorial-style content, as pre-framed, unlabeled images from political sources function more as embedded communications than independent reporting—a concern given ongoing questions about Pulse’s clarity in distinguishing advertorial from news.

We reviewed a broader sample of Pulse’s political reporting and found further attribution inconsistencies that risk undermining public trust. In many articles, image credits were listed only as “Image/Supplied”, “Image/File”, or omitted entirely. How many of these were taken by political staffers, general public members or their own team is unknown.

Such practices deprive audiences of material information, including who created the image, who selected the moment, and who benefits from the framing. “Image/Supplied” provides no meaningful context. While this may be less problematic in general coverage, omissions of this kind in political reporting are consequential.

Ultimately, these practices blur the line between journalism and political communications. In political contexts, images are not neutral, and running them without clear sourcing imports framing into editorial space, reducing accountability: political offices are shielded from scrutiny, while outlets escape responsibility for editorial choices.