Independent Pulse Tasmania Officially Backs New Liberal Linked Podcast

Following the Closure of Font PR in December 2025, Mr Stansfield along with Alex “AJ” Johnston have rebooted a state political podcast following the closure of Font PR in December last year. The first episode with a run time of 58 minutes discreetly features a partners and sponsors notice at the end including Pulse Tasmania, an outlet that has previously faced scrutiny regarding political affiliations who are named as “Poll Position’s” official media sponsor.  

EMRS, operated by former liberal staffer and LPA member Brad Stansfield, is derived from the now defunct firm Font PR which saw its works effectively consolidated into EMRS, with Director Becher Townshend retiring. The firm was previously contracted by the Hodgeman, Gutwein and Rockliff governments filling media vacancies and providing PR/GR advice and during its operation saw Liberal figures operating within the business.

Following the launch, Pulse proceeded to produce a piece on the new podcast as an official news story across its website and social channels without any conflict of interest disclosure or notice that it was the official media partner.

At the time of publication, no other Tasmanian or national media outlets had reported on the podcast’s launch. This does not suggest coordination or exclusivity but raises a significant conflict of interest concern while pointing to Pulse as being the primary source of amplification.
The Media Partnership

From public knowledge, it is understood the production and recording of the outlet is not based out of Pulse’s office but rather at the former Font PR offices in Collins St. That is not to say it is not involved in its production, Pulse’s involvement in the project may expand to other areas. Generally as a media partner your primary goal is to provide promotion and coverage of programs through your own channels. Secondly to establish credibility and reach for your client and third a combination of brand opportunities and “in-kind” support.

There is also the potential for production and editing, equipment loans, interview talent management and editorial setting which for a program of this nature is not unheard of.

It is understood that “Poll Position” formally disclosed their partnership in the last 10 seconds of the podcast, however Pulse did not extend this to readers of their ties when producing the story. Upon reviewing the materials distributed, Pulse presented the podcast to its audience as a general news piece. Without disclosure, readers have no way to judge potential bias which undermines journalistic standards.

General Standard Practices and Responsibilities:

If a journalist or outlet reports on a media product connected to a political or connected figure, it is expected by MEAA (Media & Entertainment Arts Alliance), LINA and in the case of the ACCC required that affiliations be clearly disclosed. Omitting this information makes the story read as a neutral recommendation, which is misleading. 

Pulse Has Engaged In Undisclosed Promotional Coverage, But How Was This Determined?

For something to be reasonably interpreted as undisclosed promotional coverage, three criteria  usually need to line up. In this case, they do.

• – Existence of a material relationship
• – Coverage that provides a benefit
• – The relationship not disclosed to readers

Firstly, a material relationship must be proven to have existed. The podcast itself disclosed Pulse as its official media partner which is considered a material connection even if no money has exchanged hands. As such this first point is satisfied.

Secondly, the coverage must have provided a benefit. Considering the outlet has published an uncritical, standalone article and social posts it provides a clear promotional and publicity benefit for EMRS/Poll Position.

Third, the relationship has to be undisclosed to readers. As of Sunday the outlet has made no disclosures on its mastheads or PMG. Readers would therefore interpret the content as independent editorial news satisfying the third criteria. 

A Media Outlet Promotes A Market Research & PR Company Undisclosed.

The situation worsens for Pulse when its taken into context the business behind the podcast is EMRS, a market research and PR company which aids in establishing its legitimacy through the undisclosed promotional coverage. The publication in its original form also has the potential unintended side effect of amplifying messaging from a firm that shapes narratives for clients and with business representatives with active Liberal Ties.

However, in previous works Mr Stansfield has outlined he acts impartially in his professional endeavours to both the Guardian and our outlet. It is also understood of Mr Stansfield’s critique of Premier Rockliff and the Macquarie point stadium in numerous appearances in the public.

How the ACCC stands on this issue

Under Australian Consumer Law (ACL) it is prohibited to promote deceptive or misleading content in trade or commerce. A media outlet presenting content as independent news without disclosing a material relationship (like being a media partner) could be considered misleading, because the audience is given the impression of impartiality.

The AANA Code of Ethics and ACCC guidance require clear disclosure of paid or material relationships in advertising and endorsements. Even if Pulse did not receive financial benefit or “was paid” to run stories, being a media partner is a material connection that should be disclosed, especially if the story effectively promotes the podcast.

However despite what might be perceived as a clear violation, enforcement is generally taken on a case-by-case basis with content considered. Specifically regulators would look at:

• – Whether the story was purely editorial or promotional
• – If Pulse received any benefit (monetary, reciprocal promotion, or influence)
• – How likely was it that readers were misled about the story’s independence

The Thin Ice

The bottom line sees a legal and ethical risk to Pulse for its actions. Legally this line of events could be interpreted as an ACL violation regardless if the article intentionally or unintentionally misled readers. Ethically the lack of a disclosure was a failure, most outlets would include a note like “Advertorial” “In Partnership With” which have been disclaimers used previously by the outlet, even if in some situations is insufficient in of itself.

The practical effect sees further damage to the outlets claim of independence and impartiality which saw significant amounts of information provided by this outlet and the Tasmanian Times.

Signal News Response:

Following Pulse’s defamation threat to our outlet in December, a failure to read, respond and acknowledge previous ACCC compliance issues and further mistakes by the platform, Our outlet has taken the decision to file a formal report to the ACCC for further investigation regarding this matter, and previous issues the outlet failed to correct in December.