Incompetent Journalists Richard Ashmore and Barbara Ellen

"Don't believe what you see on the Internet" is a phrase that I see quite often, and of course it's perfectly correct to have a healthy skepticism. However, this is then often followed up with a comment along the lines of "It's not proper news" or something similar. Today I'm able to bring you two marvellous examples of incompetent journalists. Please step forward Richard Ashmore of the Daily Mail and Barbara Ellen of the Observer. Between them their stupidity is quite breathtaking. Let's start with Richard Ashmore. He's written a story that starts with Apple boss Steve Jobs reveals iPhone 4 may be recalled. You might want to check the link fairly quickly, because it's likely that the Mail will pull the story off the site or change it (although obviously they can't do much about the papers). However, here's the appropriate bit:

Now, let's see where this quite startling comment comes from shall we. On the Twitter page that they got the quote we have this:

Can Richard Ashmore not read? Or alternatively is he just terminally stupid? If you look over at the biography it states 'Of course this is a parody account'. If you go on to look at a few of the tweets on the parody account it's perfectly obvious that it's a fake. Clearly Richard Ashmore either didn't read *anything* other than the tweet, or his research was zero. Absolutely shocking.

Next up is Barbara Ellen. She's written an article entitled 'Put porn where it belongs - in an online ghetto' and again I'm saving you the trouble by providing a link to the appropriate bit. Don't actually have a problem with what she says about pornography, and indeed I said something similar myself a couple of days ago, but the jaw dropping bit is right at the start of the piece.

This is of course not happening. Does she really think we're all going to have to start typing http://xxx.pornowebsite.com ? I presume that she does. Does she not understand the difference between prefix and suffix? Obviously not again. She's quite clearly not even got a rudimentary understanding of how the internet works, and yet she's employed - and even being paid - to write rubbish about a subject that she's clueless about.

So, step forward Richard Ashmore and Barbara Ellen - the best examples of clueless stupid journalists you could possibly hope to find!

[Edited to add]As noted in my comments, and predicted by me in my opening paragraph, the story has now disappeared. If you click on the link you'll get this:

Daily Mail - censoring their own content, protecting their own useless journalists. If proof were needed (which it isn't), they're a disgrace to the 4th estate.

Comments

[John Kirriemuir]

...and the Daily Mail website story is pulled already. Glad you got a screenshot of it.

[James]

The idea that a "journalist" feels qualified to pontificate on any subject regardless of their level of knowledge is neither new nor surprising, particularly in the fields of science and technology. Although I don't like it, I've come to expect it. So I'm not surprised that Ms Ellen doesn't know how the internet works or what a TLD is.

That a professional writer, someone whose whole job is to use words to convey meaning and should therefore know the meaning of the words they use, doesn't know the difference between suffix and prefix is...well I don't know, I'm stunned. Don't forget, this article was probably sub-edited as well, meaning there are at least two people at The Observer who can't tell one end of a word from another!

[Jock McGrumpy]

Is this the same Barbara Ellen who used to call herself Barbara E and 'write' for the NME in the late 80's/early 90's?
Why are people surprised at the incompetency of journalists? The media is full of imbeciles who know nothing about anything but are somehow paid to pontificate about everything and anything. More fool those who read them and believe them!"

[Tom Roper]

Yes, it is the same Barbara Ellen, but in her defence, and the other fellow's, it's the sub-editors' job to spot errors like this in a contributor's copy and correct them. The trouble is that most newspapers have shed subs to cut costs, just as libraries cut professional librarian posts.

[Tom Roper]

As an afterthought, if you prefer your fake Steve Jobs at more discursive length than 140 characters, I strongly recommend The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs

[Bina]

Sorry to be coming to this post quite late. Presumably, there are significant numbers of people who were raised on complete tat like "Jackie Magazine" which was notorious for cooking up all kinds of spurious 'information' masquerading as fact. The Daily Mail & Observer obviously know who their audience is...adults who've been trained to accept complete and utter BS.