ASIC is regarded by some commentators as being at the forefront of chasing down poor audit practice given that it is the regulator's role to concern itself with market integrity.Audit is a way of ensuring a company is providing its members or shareholders with a set of financial statements that fairly present the affairs of an entity. ASIC has the role of making sure auditors do their job properly. It also has the job of giving them a hiding when they don't. Or at least that what they should be doing.Let's accept that you and I - reader and writer -  both agree that chasing down poor audit practice is important. Shouldn't the regulator actually be better at telling the community about the work it does to chase down poor audit practice rather than load up audit inspection reports with language that is designed to bury what journalists would call 'the lede'.That is journo speak for the fact that sometimes the most important part of the story appears some place other than the top of the yarn. It is regarded as an example of poor judgement on the part of a writer that has chosen to emphasise a less significant element of the tale.Our corporate regulator does it almost all the time with audit firm inspection reports and it is infuriating to the point of distraction during a debate on audit regulation.It is an area being revisited because there have been concerns about conflicts over the definition of audit quality, concerns about the independence of audit firms, an insistence that consulting services be banned despite commentators lacking a full understanding of the regulatory framework currently in place and a focus on the length of audit firm tenure and whether it creates an increasing familiarity threat that might cause a decline in the objectivity of the audit.These issues are nothing new. Many of these matters come down to perceptions in relation to quantum of non-audit service fees having an impact on the way in which an auditor heading an audit engagement team comes to their opinion.Perception is king in certain quarters and forensic examination of the facts beyond the figures contained in annual reports is rarely undertaken. There is no time for forensic analysis when all that matters to some people is one phrase: 'it is a bad look'. The questions that must be answered are whether there is any breach of the Corporations Act 2001, auditing standards or the ethical pronouncements rather than the rather inadequate proxy that is 'it is a bad look'.It is also a rather unfortunate proxy because there will always be a question in the back of the minds of those individuals who suspend any capacity for critical thinking as to whether there is a conflict in the provision of non-audit services.The only way of dealing forensically with the issue of independence and non-audit service fees is by the corporate regulator taking a deep dive on these issues but it must harden up the way it