@Nanday
"I don't know where to begin in refuting this. I think I'll start with Freedom of Speech. If the newspapers have it, then so do its readers. I have executed my freedom of speech and given my opinion about how events have unfolded in the writing of articles by AFR. Yes much of what I think is speculation on my part and it's not kind to the AFR."
""Let them write what they want, fair enough. But don't attack its readers such as myself for writing what we want about them, just as they do it about whoever they choose. ""
I am not suggesting you can't accuse the AFR of dishonesty. I'm not trying to muzzle anyone. Freedom to express one's thoughts is necessary as part of the learning experience. I'm just pointing out that if news media which is in fact trustworthy is constantly attacked as dishonest, then that is dangerous for society. There needs to be trusted, independent news organisations to hold those in positions of responsibility to account. If no one trusts the news media, then corruption will flourish.
"
And so are the articles written by the AFR. They quote unnamed sources, they quote sources who plan to short the company (and that is clear bias).
"
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the shorters shorted the stock, then tipped off the AFR. But if the story that is being tipped off did indeed deserved to be published on its merits, then what was the correct course of action from the AFR? To not publish the story, even though it was in the public interest, just because you dislike the motivations of the person who tipped you off about it? They had to publish it when they knew about it if they were serious about their job of holding to account potentially deceiving practices.
They only interview clients who did not continue after the free trial (what about the other 90%? who are retained clients). That's clear bias. Reputable newspapers who have integrity report all sides of a story."
They did seek comments from a range of GSW clients, and not just those who did not continue after the free trial. They asked Red Rooster, who gave GSW a glowing review. They attempted to get comments from others, including Amazon. Is that not fair enough?
I know there is argument made that there is in fact no inconsistency between what was announced and what Fantastic Furniture, CBA and Fruit Box were saying because it was
implied that the agreements announced were non-binding and contained a free trial, but judging from the reaction to the story many, including some GSW shareholders, did not see it that way. The fact that a very large number, probably majority, of observers thought the agreements announced amounted to firm agreements with commitments ought to have been enough to justify the publication of the original story.
"There are dozens of companies on the ASX who have made dubious announcements, I have been investing over a decade and could give the names of many, but they get ignored by the AFR. Where is the integrity of a newspaper when it goes after one company and ignores many others?"
It's true that there are many, many ASX listed companies which regularly put out misleading and deceptive announcements. The vast majority of these companies are 'penny dreadfuls', with tiny market caps of maybe $20m to $30m at most. GSW is clearly no longer a penny stock. It is closer to an ASX300 stock, for which the standards expected of company officers are
much higher.
Simply put, there is greater public interest in larger organisations than small ones. The AFR, like any news organisations, has limited resources and cannot go after every single company that puts out potentially deceptive announcements. So it would seem to me to make sense to prioritise the instances where the public interest is greater and where a greater number of shareholders are potentially affected (larger companies tend to have more shareholders than penny stocks).
