An investigation by Press Gazette has revealed that the UK trades-booking business MyJobQuote is linked to a network of questionable experts who have contributed over 600 pieces of often misleading commentary to various media outlets in the past four years. This inquiry was prompted by concerns regarding the legitimacy of these so-called experts, many of whom appear to be fabricated or utilize AI-generated images.

Among those highlighted is gardener Fiona Jenkins, who has been cited 172 times despite lacking a verifiable online presence or any means for the public to engage her services. Other individuals associated with MyJobQuote include pest control expert Robert Collins and DIY expert Thomas Goodman, both of whom also lack credible professional backgrounds. Experts in relevant fields have criticized the advice provided by these figures as potentially dangerous and misleading; for instance, Collins' pest control recommendations have been deemed inconsistent with recognized practices by professionals from the British Pest Control Association.

In response to these findings, major newspaper publisher Reach has acknowledged featuring these questionable experts multiple times and committed to implementing stricter controls and training for its journalists. Cision, a prominent public relations firm in the United States, is investigating press releases linked to MyJobQuote and has begun removing some from its platform after identifying them as misleading. The company stated it takes allegations of misleading information seriously and is reviewing its compliance policies concerning customer submissions.

Despite attempts to contact MyJobQuote for clarification on these allegations, there has been no public response from the company. This situation has sparked discussions within both the PR industry and journalism about verifying sources more rigorously to prevent similar occurrences in the future. Overall, this incident highlights growing concerns about misinformation in media and underscores the need for accountability within both sectors to maintain a trustworthy information ecosystem.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (misinformation) (accountability)

The article presents a concerning investigation into the credibility of experts associated with MyJobQuote, revealing that many of them may be fabricated or lack verifiable backgrounds. However, it does not provide actionable information for readers looking to navigate this issue or improve their understanding of expert credibility in media.

First, regarding actionable information, the article does not offer clear steps or instructions that a reader can implement. It discusses the existence of questionable experts but fails to guide readers on how to verify expert credentials or seek reliable advice in related fields. There are no resources provided for readers to check the legitimacy of individuals quoted in media outlets.

In terms of educational depth, while the article highlights significant issues surrounding misinformation and unverified sources, it lacks thorough explanations about how these practices affect journalism and public perception. The mention of specific figures like Fiona Jenkins and Robert Collins raises awareness but does not delve into broader systems or reasoning behind why such practices might be occurring.

Personal relevance is limited as well; while the topic touches on safety and reliability in advice related to gardening and pest control, it does not directly impact most people's day-to-day lives unless they are specifically seeking such expertise. The concerns raised are more about journalistic integrity than immediate personal consequences.

The public service function is weak; although it identifies a problem within media reporting, it does not provide warnings or guidance that could help readers avoid misinformation. The focus seems more on exposing an issue rather than empowering readers with knowledge on how to discern credible sources themselves.

Practical advice is absent from this piece. It discusses misleading commentary without offering any realistic steps for readers to follow when evaluating expert opinions they encounter in articles or advertisements.

Regarding long-term impact, while raising awareness about misinformation is valuable, the article fails to equip readers with tools for future decision-making regarding expert advice. There are no suggestions for improving habits around sourcing information or verifying claims made by purported experts.

Emotionally and psychologically, the article may induce concern over misinformation but lacks constructive ways for individuals to respond effectively. Instead of fostering clarity or calmness through guidance on navigating these issues, it primarily highlights problems without solutions.

There is also an absence of clickbait language; however, sensationalizing claims about fabricated experts could lead some readers toward fear rather than informed action.

Lastly, there are missed opportunities throughout the piece where practical guidance could have been included. For example, providing tips on how one might independently verify an expert's credentials—such as checking professional associations relevant to their field—could empower readers significantly.

To add value beyond what was presented in the article: when seeking expertise online or through media outlets, always look for credentials that can be verified through independent sources like professional organizations relevant to their field (e.g., gardening societies or pest control associations). Consider cross-referencing multiple articles from different publications before accepting any advice as valid. If you find recommendations that seem dubious—especially if they contradict established practices—it's wise to consult professionals directly rather than relying solely on potentially unreliable commentary found online. This approach will help you make safer choices based on credible information rather than potentially misleading content.

The text uses strong words like "questionable" and "dubious" to describe the experts associated with MyJobQuote. This choice of language creates a negative impression of these individuals before any evidence is presented. By labeling them in this way, the text suggests that they are untrustworthy without providing a balanced view of their contributions. This bias helps to reinforce skepticism about these experts and their advice.

The phrase "often misleading commentary" implies that the information provided by these experts is not just incorrect but intentionally deceptive. This wording can lead readers to believe that there is malicious intent behind their statements, which may not be substantiated by evidence in the text. Such language can create a sense of distrust towards these individuals without presenting clear proof of wrongdoing.

When discussing Fiona Jenkins, the text states she has been cited 172 times despite lacking a verifiable online presence. The emphasis on her lack of online presence could mislead readers into thinking she is entirely fabricated or illegitimate without considering other possible explanations for her citations. This framing can unfairly damage her reputation and suggests she should not be taken seriously as an expert.

The investigation mentions that “experts in relevant fields have criticized” the advice from these dubious figures as potentially dangerous and misleading. However, it does not provide specific examples or quotes from those experts to support this claim. By stating this criticism without backing it up, the text leaves readers with an impression of danger while lacking concrete details, which could lead to fear or mistrust based on speculation rather than facts.

The phrase “fabricated expertise” suggests that there is deliberate deceit involved in how these so-called experts are presented to the public. This term implies that MyJobQuote intentionally created false credentials for its contributors, which may not be proven within the text itself. Such strong wording can shape reader perceptions negatively toward MyJobQuote without clear evidence supporting such serious accusations.

When stating that “major newspaper publisher Reach has acknowledged the issue,” it implies accountability but does not detail what specific actions will be taken or what failures occurred previously. This lack of detail might make readers feel reassured about future improvements while glossing over past mistakes made by Reach's publications regarding journalistic integrity. It presents a surface-level acknowledgment rather than a thorough examination of responsibility or change.

In discussing pest control expert Robert Collins' recommendations being inconsistent with recognized practices, there is no direct citation from recognized authorities or studies provided in support of this claim within the text itself. Without specific references to established guidelines or expert opinions backing up this assertion, it risks misleading readers into believing Collins’ advice is universally rejected when it may simply differ from certain standards without being outright wrong.

The mention that MyJobQuote has not responded to inquiries adds an element of suspicion towards them but does not clarify what those inquiries were about specifically nor why they might choose not to respond at all. This omission allows for speculation about their motives and intentions but does not provide enough context for fair judgment regarding their silence on potential criticisms raised against them.

Overall, phrases like “misleading commentary” and “dubious experts” are used throughout to frame individuals negatively before presenting any substantial evidence against them directly within the article itself. Such language choices create an atmosphere where readers might accept claims at face value due solely to emotional responses elicited by charged terminology rather than objective analysis based on facts alone.

The text presents a range of emotions that contribute to its overall message about the dangers of misinformation in journalism. One prominent emotion is concern, which emerges from phrases like "questionable experts," "misleading commentary," and "potentially dangerous." This concern is particularly strong when discussing the lack of verifiable backgrounds for individuals like Fiona Jenkins and Robert Collins, suggesting a serious issue that could affect public safety. The purpose of this emotion is to evoke worry in the reader about the reliability of information they encounter in media outlets, especially regarding topics that could impact their well-being.

Another significant emotion expressed is frustration, particularly directed at media organizations such as Reach. The acknowledgment from Reach about needing stricter controls implies an awareness of past failures, which can lead readers to feel disappointed or angry at how easily misinformation has spread. This frustration serves to build distrust towards these publications and encourages readers to question the integrity of sources they may have previously relied upon.

Additionally, there is an underlying sense of urgency throughout the investigation. Phrases like “growing concern” and references to “misinformation” create a pressing atmosphere that suggests immediate action is needed to address these issues. This urgency aims to inspire readers not only to be more critical consumers of information but also potentially advocate for changes within media practices.

The writer employs emotional language strategically by using terms such as "dubious," "fabricated," and "inconsistent with recognized practices." These words carry strong negative connotations that enhance feelings of distrust and alarm regarding the so-called experts cited in major publications. By emphasizing these negative traits through vivid descriptors, the text effectively steers readers' attention toward the severity of misinformation's impact on public knowledge.

Moreover, repetition plays a crucial role in reinforcing these emotions; mentioning multiple instances where experts have been quoted across various platforms emphasizes how widespread this issue has become. This technique not only heightens emotional engagement but also solidifies the argument against reliance on unverified sources.

In summary, through careful word choice and emotional framing, the text guides readers toward feelings of concern and frustration while instilling a sense of urgency about addressing misinformation in journalism. These emotions are designed to foster skepticism towards unreliable sources and encourage critical thinking among audiences regarding what they read in media outlets.