Some mightn't know that AFR (ex Fairfax Media) was merged
'recently' with Nine and Nine own the Age, the SMH and now also AFR. Check Nine's SP over the past year.
I'm using SMH's definition of 'recently' and also AFR's.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Entertainment_Co.ntertainment_Co.
Very interesting to then read this next link below as you would wonder why SMH and AFR are now lashing out at other emergent Australian companies. Look and do a search of AFR's financial trading history to date and Nine's own shareholding and Nine's ASX listed history to date including Nine's SP.
https://www.copyright link/companie...-this-masthead-is-on-a-streak-20180726-h136g2And then this:
10 May 2019
https://www.copyright link/companie...age-sub-editors-back-in-house-20190510-p51lyzNine chief executive Hugh Marks says the merger with Fairfax Media
has created a diverse media business with increasing digital earnings and less reliance on television and print advertising. Following the merger,
which completed on December 7, the combined firm has businesses across digital, publishing, streaming, radio, TV and real estate classifieds.
There are some very serious journalistic integrity issues appearing.
Another recent example, SMH's article "quote below" has made a malicious inference by running separate statements together that are not financially related. I'd love to see ABC's Media Watch pull SMH's article apart to demonstrate 'intent' by SMH and AFR given other recent statements which have been resoundingly refuted by ISX.
One direct quote from today's smh 'slur' - Colin K - link below. (Note: we can all paraphrase without referring to a specific reference or point in time or without providing actual evidence to back up the claim as AFR and SMF are doing. But many of us aren't journalists and yet I am directly quoting and using a published journalist's post CK's from the SMH).
CK's post's attention-seeking-headline in SMH today is particularly misleading especially if you actually read down far enough. Another click and then you read:
"There is no suggestion that iSignthis has been involved in any wrongdoing. But the move on its customers could raise concerns about the financial performance of the company, which was valued at $1.8 billion last week but reported revenue of just $7.5 million for the June half year."SMH (Colin K is) ambiguously stating the company "reported revenue of just $7.5 million for the June half year". This to me is a malicious inference running separate statements together that are not financially related and unsubstantiated given the wording of that statement and those sentences within that paragraph. How can CK from SMH make that statement re "reported revenue of just $7.5 million for the June half year" without qualifying the statement? or place it in an accurate context? Also CK, needs to be explain his ambiguous statement "move on its customers" - there is no basis for that remark. Another unsubstantiated 'slur'.
My reference is posted below from ISX's many published ASX announcements. The audited version is also available from ASX's announcements site and also ISX's website.
But do SMH care about journalistic integrity or factual unbiased reporting ? If all they want is attention? How desperate are they? AFR...Nine? Their tactics remind me of many HC trollers who want any attention, as some attention is better than none.
Obviously Nine, SMH and AFR don't care about the quality of the information they publish online. They are more interested in seeing how many 'clicks' or 'likes' they get for whatever they post. No doubt (?) they quote their click/like simplistic metrics when selling advertising (?).
