How do you get the conclusion that the revenues are "artificially generated" from the premise that they bought ad agencies? All of your posts state conclusions but never contain the arguments to get from premise to conclusion.
Your last sentence says that the revenues are not real nor sustainable.
What is your argument that the revenues are not real? Your own post says the revenues are from TV as well as from VISN's network, so at least some of the revenues are real even by your own words. Be specific about how much revenue is not real revenue, and how do you prove that?
Your other statement is that the revenues are not sustainable. What is your proof of that statement?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company buying other companies to expand their revenue, and paying heavily for that in the first few years. The key of course is sustainability. If you believe that these revenues are recurring and growing for another 10 years, then the discounted cash flows more than pay back the incentive payments for those revenues during the first few years. If you believe the revenues are likely to diminish or just disappear within a few years, then obviously they are not very good acquisitions and the returns are going to be poor.
You don't make any argument at all. You just state conclusions. Prove something.