In Text:
Dear Mr. Stutchbury,
There was a time when I thought the AFR was thepaper to read – one in which the articles stated the facts - applying “balance”when the real facts were unknown or unproven. Those were the days I was happy to subscribe, but not now - and I know many others who refuse to subscribe to the AFR today.
It appears to many past AFR subscribers that ithas become more important to the AFR to get the “clicks” than to enforcehonesty and integrity in reporting. We do, of course, read articles – some of us get articles from friends, some read articles by bi-passing the JavaScript. So, the AFR does, in a way, get the clicks, but not the revenue. And it won’t – until it cleans up its act.
It appears to many of us that the AFR is willinglyproviding a platform for revenge for some of your reporters. Between Aston, Rodden, Shapiro and their co-writers, there have been in excess of 55 articles on iSignThis (ISX) or John Karantzis (JK) since October 2019. These columnists (they are not really reporters, in my opinion) consistently, again - in my opinion, slither around the facts – regularly, providing false and misleading statements due to insufficient facts and balance. Aston, in particular, has used the AFR platform to insult, malign and defame Karantzis, ISX and ISX supporters, in my opinion and supported by the recent JK win in the Supreme Court against the AFR.1
Take the most recent article by Rodden, Karantzis’Saudi deal sparks new ambassador rules2, as an example. The article appears to be less about the Ambassador not being aware of a meeting JK was having with the Saudis, but to simply give Rodden the opportunity to restate old unsupported stories about ISX and JK. This article says nothing about what the issue was regarding the ambassador – was it simply that the Ambassador did not know and wanted to be informed in the future about visits being made to Saudi Arabia – therefore a need for a check-list? We don’t know. The article does not say. There is nothing revealed by the AFR accessing “a high priority” email and related emails– who sent the email (internal, or external – AFR perhaps?) We aren’t told.
What we are supplied instead is rehashed, dated,biased and incomplete information about ISX’s and JK’s problems with ASX, ASIC,ATO, and JK DPO – complete with helpful links to past – and in my opinion - biased, incomplete and misleading articles, linked to past articles, linked to past articles and linked to past articles, which are more of the same (see picture of linked articles of the Ambassador article back to October 2019 below).
That AFR does not appear to have reporters(columnists?) who are true investigative reporters. None of Aston, Rodden, or Shapiro appear to have the ability to think outside of the establishment box and question whether something more might be going on and/or whether something might be amiss here. For example, why hasn’t the AFR investigated or reported on:
1. Thefact that ASX within 24 hours before suspending ISX stated they hadinsufficient reason to suspend without a direction from ASIC and would (insuspending ISX) go well beyond its powers;
2. WhetherASX was aware of ISX’s plans to buy into NSX and create a competing settlementssystem and whether this influenced ASX’s decision to suspend ISX. The AFR, in one of its articles chooses to infer that this was an ISX decision after ISX was suspended, while it is generally known that ISX was working on this plan since late 2018;
3. Whetherthere was a link between ASX and the Ownership Matters (OM) report prior to itsdistribution to selected subscribers. We do know that Paatsch of OM worked with ASX prior to the suspension. Did ASX requisition the report as a “tool” for a suspension?
4. Thefact that the only option that existed for ISX was to take ASX to courtregarding ASX’s treatment of ISX. This was necessary because ASX had removed rights to appeal in 2016 without consultation and against the advice of the Law Council of Australia. In a letter to ASX, the Law Council said, “the Committee remains concerned the removal of appeal rights has inappropriately removed important protections for people whose interests may be adversely affected by ASX decisions under the Listing Rules. The Committee also remains unconvinced that it was appropriate to proceed with such a material change to ASX’s operating rules without consultation.”3
5. Whether ASX or ASIC had communications with VISA prior to the suspension alert by VISA, in other words. Is the VISA issue a case of entrapment?
6. Why the ATO rushed into charging Karantzis with a $10.7m tax bill and not adequately investigate the shareholding of ISX(BVI)?
7. Whatwas the reason the DPO over Karantzis was dismissed based on a mere $107,000 ofJK’s assets in escrow?
8. Isthere collusion between the “agencies” of government to discredit ISX and JK?
Although ISX and JK are in thecourts on each of the ASX, ASIC and ATO matters and therefore nothing has beenproven in the courts, there does not seem to be a single AFR columnist that iswilling to consider ISX or JK’s arguments and to include them in articles thatare written. They all just repeat more of the same – over, and over, and over.
I am also concerned that themethodology of placing links in articles that go back continuously over timeprovides readers with an inaccurate picture of the facts as they existtoday. Links to articles also still exist about which Karantzis has challenged AFR in the courts and succeeded. A statement at the end of the article restating the apology to ISX and its shareholders is not enough. These articles should be removed from the AFR archives.
It is my opinion that when the AFRchanges its blinkered, biased approach to articles, there will be many,including me, who will return to subscriptions of the AFR.
Yours sincerely,
1https://www.isignthis.com/hubfs/Investor%20Documents%202020/Announcements/2021/April/Australian%20Financial%20Review%20apology%20to%20CEO%20Mr%20Karantzis.pdf?hsLang=en
3 https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/docs/87dc9e68-20b5-e611-80d2-005056be66b1/3147_-_Removal_of_appeal_rights_for_decisions_under_ASX_Listing_Rules.pdf
