Am loathe to add more clicks to 9EC's media stable....9EC's...

Am loathe to add more clicks to 9EC's media stable....9EC's media stable includes AFR, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and others.

I find it difficult to get over or past this one - 11 November 2019 - freely available, not via subscription - why hasn't the statement ever been challenged by ASX or 9EC -- how, why and who allowed this to occur.  ASX have never refuted the claims made in this article below.

Joe Aston is once again...given today's ANN, continuing to publish malicious/and or erroneous/and or misleading and  defamatory information against ISX  AND IN THIS INSTANCE - prior to ASX having to lodge documents with the Federal Court in response to ISX's claim.  [IMO and unable to state it on HC threads - 9EC appears to be a forerunner for ???  and what in fact ??? }

And WHY?  Obviously in this instance Aston's editor approved his latest article - is it seriously all about clicks and how to sell readership/advertising revenue to others?  What happened to integrity and the truth particularly for a publication which labels itself the Australian Financial Review.  Review of what?  What information, what facts, what data?
_______

disallowed/business/markets/isignth...s-role-in-its-suspension-20191111-p539cd.html

EXCERPT FROM LINK ABOVE 11 NOVEMBER 2019 - HOW CAN THIS BE ALLOWED AND HOW/WHY NOT REFUTED BY THE ASX?  This article actually states that on a weekend, the ASX shared or gave information to the Herald and Age.   By what other means could Kruger, AFR, Herald, The Age (9EC) have obtained and sighted the emails.  How many were working at/for ASX on that weekend - remotely or intra-office?  Someone from ASX provided individuals within 9EC media with emails which any ASX listed company should and should be able to rightly and legally assume would remain confidential.

11 NOVEMBER 2019 - PUBLISHED by 9EC media---

Kruger:  "The emails seen by the Herald and Age detail part of the exchange between iSignthis and ASX on Sunday afternoon over the company's announcement, with the market operator saying it "incorrectly implies" it had refused to say who "asked" for the suspension for more than a month."