Fact Checking Is Dead: Mainstream Media Goes Nuts Repeating Debunked Claims By The Fake 'Inventor Of Email'
from the is-this-really-so-hard? dept
I had honestly hoped that yesterday's story about the Huffington Post finally retracting its series of totally bogus articles (mostly written by Shiva Ayyadurai or his colleagues and friends, but a few by its actual "journalists"), pretending to argue that V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai had "invented email," would be the end of this story. Ayyadurai has built up quite a reputation around this false claim, even though it's been debunked over and over and over again.
Ayyadurai keeps coming back, often moving the goalposts and changing his definitions, but still ultimately flat out lying in pretending to have "invented" email. To be clear, he did no such thing. Email was in wide use at the time he supposedly wrote his software. Ayyadurai, however, has cleverly used misleading (to downright false) claims to make what appears on its face to be a credible story, fooling a number of gullible reporters. The crux of his argument revolves around the copyright registration he obtained for a software program in 1982 called EMAIL. But, as we've explained over and over again, a copyright is just for a specific expression (i.e., that specific program), and not for "inventing" anything. The most obvious parallel would be Microsoft, which holds a copyright on "Windows" -- the operating system -- but did not "invent" the idea of a graphical user interface involving "windows."
And yet, yesterday morning, everyone began flooding me with new stories about Ayyadurai, written by clueless entertainment reporters, all because Ayyadurai apparently got married to actress Fran Drescher. The "dating Fran Drescher" story has been making the rounds for a while now, and it was so random and unrelated that we'd ignored it in previous posts, even though one part of the HuffPo series was HuffPo Live talking to Ayyadurai about Drescher, in what was an incredibly awkward exchange (note: despite pulling most of the other articles about Ayyaduria, HuffPo left this one up). In the video (which has been taken down), Ayyadurai made this incredibly awkward "introduction" to Fran, in which he repeatedly highlights that he's just hanging out "in Malibu with Fran," and then says for emphasis "with Fran Drescher, who I'm dating." That leads Fran to jump into view, and the HuffPo live "reporter" Caroline Modarressy-Tehrani starts absolutely gushing over Fran. It was weird, but since it wasn't directly related to whole lie about "inventing email," we hadn't mentioned it.
However, thanks to the "wedding," now it appears that tons of mainstream press reports are writing about the wedding and repeating the totally debunked claim about Ayyadurai "inventing" email. This has resulted in many people wondering if the whole HuffPo series was deliberately ramped up prior to the "wedding" to get the mainstream press to roll with the bogus claim. It's entirely possible, but considering that Ayyadurai has been trying to make this lie stick for years, it may just be a convenient coincidence. Either way, the mainstream press apparently is unable to do any fact checking and is repeating bogus claims as facts. Let's highlight a few:
- People Magazine, written by "reporter" Gabrielle Olya, not only falsely claims Ayyadurai invented email, but says he "holds the patent for creating email." This is all kinds of wrong. He doesn't "hold the patent for creating email." He didn't create email, and he only got a copyright (not a patent) on a program called EMAIL long after email had been created. The People Magazine piece links to the bogus, now retracted, HuffPo story.
- E-Online "reporter" Mike Vulpo falsely calls Ayyadurai "the inventor of email" and also links to the bogus, now retracted HuffPo story. Even more bizarrely, Vulpo links to the now debunked Washington Post articles from a few years ago (which have a huge correction apologizing for the misreporting on Ayyadurai) saying "reports say he holds the copyright to the computer program known as "email." Others say he indeed came up with the term "email" when he was in high school in the late 1970s. Pretty impressive, right?" I love the hedges "reports say" and "others say" while ignoring the fact that his claims to have "invented" email are debunked. And while this is slightly more accurate in noting that he has a copyright in a program called "email," it's not "the" computer program called EMAIL, which falsely implies it was the first one. Even more bizarrely, this same piece was reposted to "NBC Bay Area." You would think, being in the Bay Area, that they might have reached out to folks actually in the tech industry to debunk Ayyadurai's ridiculous claims.
- ABC News / Good Morning America "reporter" Michael Rothman falsely claims that Ayyadurai is the "inventor of email" and makes it even more stupid by saying that Ayyadurai is "widely credited with having invented email." This is not even remotely true. He is only credited with that by himself and a tiny group of friends. Rothman also doesn't appear to understand even the basics of copyright by saying that Ayyadurai is "the first person to hold a copyright for 'EMAIL.'" Again, all he did was write a program called EMAIL, long after email had been invented. It also claims that Ayyadurai "currently teaches at MIT." A search of MIT's staff directory does not actually return Ayyadurai as a current staff member.
- CBS News expands their reputation for skipping over any fact checking by saying Ayyadurai "holds the patent for inventing email." Again, basically everything in that statement is wrong. He doesn't have a patent for inventing email. He got a copyright (very different) on a program called EMAIL. And he didn't invent email. At least CBS News is smart enough not to put a byline on this bogus reporting, but it also quotes the Huffington Post.
- UPI has an article that doesn't mention Ayyadurai's false claims in the text of the article, but does falsely call him "email creator" in the headline (which may not have been written by the reporter who wrote the article).
- The Daily Mail is somewhat famous for its lack of reporting skills and fact checking -- and the publication lives down to its reputation in an article by Chelsea White, which again repeats the myth that Ayyadurai invented email. And while it claims there's "controversy" over the claim (there isn't: everyone except him and his friends know he didn't invent email) it repeats the bogus claim that he has a patent on email: "Dr. Ayyadurai - who owns the patent to email and is often credited as the inventor of the electronic mail system amid some controversy." It also links to the Huffington Post.
- US Magazine "reporter" Madeline Boardman more or less repeats verbatim what others are saying about Ayyadurai being "the inventor" of email and that he is "widely credited" as such.
- Headline and Global News "reporter" Dina Exil repeatedly calls Ayyadurai the inventor of email and also claims he "is known for being the first person to invent email," except none of that is true. He's known for pretending that.
- Popcrush "reporter" Michelle McGahan calls Ayyadurai "the inventor of email" and also falsely claims he "owns the patent for email."
It is worth noting that not everyone fell for the spin. The LA Times and San Francisco Chronicle both focused mainly on Drescher and more or less ignored Ayyadurai's bogus claims (though, the LA Times does say he's at MIT, which again, does not list him as a current staff member).
The only publications I can find that really called out the bogus claims were Mashable, which noted that Drescher has married someone who "likes to claim he invented email" and Gawker, which noted that if Fran Drescher had actually read its previous articles about Ayyadurai, she might not have married him. What's funny is that in writing our series about the Huffington Post's bogus stories, some of our commenters insisted that this was actually proof as to why these "new media" players weren't trustworthy compared to traditional vetted media. And yet, above we have "trusted" media like ABC and CBS repeating totally false claims, while new media players like Mashable and Gawker are debunking them.
Anyway, I'd like to think this story is now over, but somehow I get the feeling that Ayyadurai will continue to press his bogus claims again and again and again.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, email, fact checking, fran drescher, inventor of email, journalism, patents, reporting, shiva ayyadurai, v.a. shiva ayyadurai, wedding
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
1962 if you consider the first systems, 1969 if you consider the one used on ARPANET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Ayyadurai
Born 1963. Either he was a child genius or he wasn't even born.
Took me 1 minute to find both and another minute to check the references. SUCK IT OLD MEDIA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will go on forever
Yes, he will. That he's still making this claim despite being slapped down for it years ago indicates that he will never give this up. It appears to be his sole bid at fame.
I still wonder if he's deluded or a con man. That's only of academic interest, though. Either way, he's wrong and is attempting to rewrite history for his own aggrandizement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This will go on forever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This will go on forever
It has more to do, I believe, with the way people develop (and are educated) their critical thinking skills. One dictionary defines it as, "disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"
For some reason, our society does not reinforce this behavior, "particularly the informed by evidence part." I think we could make a career out of explaining why.
But it is really frustrating, no? When people (public servants, entertainers, corporations, etc.) make claims, especially important ones, no one demands any evidence nor holds that evidence to any standards of quality or provenance.
As a result, we've established that argumentation by emotion or reputation is simply enough.
It makes me sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This will go on forever
Why not? Nobody (except TD) seems to have the basic fact-checking skills or the willingness to use them. He might have made up the whole thing and trusted that the passage of all this time provides acceptable cover for his failure to produce tangible proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, nobody is saying that any of them were definitively caused by asteroid or comet impacts and there are tons of other hypothesis. However, the Chicxulub crater and the iridium concentration in the sediment looks pretty convincing to me as an answer for the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget Platinum, make it Iridium!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dating anomolies
What's the conclusion? Some of the dates may be quite accurate, others are completely wrong and we can not be certain which are which. We make guesses and assume they are correct. Getting your knickers in a knot over "being correct" only stifles the research and ends up ignoring various aspects of the evidence that doesn't accord with your POV.
As has been said many elsewhere over many decades (particularly in the engineering field), models are only approximations and are only applicable in particular limited circumstances. I am rereading two books that highlight this - "Applied Circuit Theory: Matrix and Computer Methods" (P. R. Adby) and "Applied Mathematics for Engineers and Physicists" (3rd Edition) (Pipes & Harvill). Too often, we forget that our models are just that.
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dating anomolies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dating anomolies
Scientists don't just randomly pick a 'theory' and vote on it - the agreement that a meteor strike took out the dinosaurs was based on years of painstaking searching, years of various tests, and a huge amount of actual evidence. I've watched the case build from a 'maybe' when I was a kid to 'pretty definite' now. Plus, the final, current view is slightly more nuanced - there were mass eruptions in India (Deccan Traps) at the same time that were already putting massive stress on the biosphere.
Again, actual scientists are well aware that models are only that - but when various models not only agree with observations but can make testable predictions, they can be viewed with some confidence. But a lot of what we are discussing here is not based 'just' on models.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dating anomolies
I would agree with you there. However, the proviso is that what they find acceptable will be based on their fundamental beliefs and their worldview and their training, not necessarily on all of the factual evidence. Try getting an established authority to change his/her mind with experimental evidence that is not in accordance with their views and you had better duck real fast. You will find yourself in the outer.
Having dealt with some of these experts, I disagree that they are well aware. Highlighting inconsistencies with the models in use will generally get a defensive posture not a reasoned discussion. Scientists are just as arrogant and short-sighted as anyone else. I have been on the end of the ridicule for highlighting inconsistencies or raising experimental evidence that conflicts with the prevailing view. The pressure to ignore such evidence can be quite high and subtle threats can be made to ignore such evidence.
What I find interesting is that quite different models will make similar predictions. A fairly common misconception is that theories are reality (that is "it is fact") when they are in fact only approximations or belief. The difficult thing to keep in mind is that mathematics which is the basis of these theories uses specific techniques to simplify the processes demanded. Differentiation and integration are where we use a technique of making something head towards 0 or infinity to simplify the processes required to solve the problems at hand. These work and work well. BUT...singularities are a simplification technique not matching reality. Many (if not all) of the science models depend on singularities (or other such entities) to make the model relatively simple. When you start believing in singularities you had better have more "proof" than your mathematics.
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you see the tizzies that the creationist organisations threw when they saw the recent Cosmos series with neil de Grasse Tyson? Quiet a bit like Ayyadurai 'complaining' about people not buying his made-up email history, because, you know, evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Still, people believe in the bible. What can you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what I was talking about
Add a few dozen more to the list of media outlets you should not trust to only give you the truth. These are but a few of the millions of stories written every year that would be better served by taking the 'easy way out' and presenting opposing views alongside the more mainstream views. This is what happens when the media gets to tell people what to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is what I was talking about
I'm not sure the "present both sides" approach is really going to help. Finding someone who disagrees with someone else doesn't necessarily get you to the truth either if it's still crappy reporting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact Check?
You minds well be saying the Supermarket Tabloids don't fact check their Martian Alien Sightings (the alien was from JUPITER... not Mars!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure they will all be blaming the internet, which is where this sort originated to begin with. They neither got the scoop first (provided it was newsworthy) nor did they bother to check the facts. So what will happen is either they will double down in an attempt to continue to look like a reputable news source, or they will man up for an exposure. Care to take a guess about which one dominates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
David Oliver Graeme Samuel Offenbach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting a prominent story out for other publications to see and take as confirmation while writing their own reports on his marriage, thus providing further reinforcement to his claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UPI does not seem all that wrong
You are being too skeptical here. I consider it entirely likely that he indeed managed to create even more than one email so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps this has been Ayyadurai's clever strategy all along. Or perhaps he's just a delusional egomaniac.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As Robert Anton Wilson famously said, "belief is the death of intelligence."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact checking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They couldn't very well write "Annoyingly-voiced actress Fran Drescher today married V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, well-known inventor of the 'I created the email!' lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Aunt
She actually got kinda pissed about it some person taking credit for all the hard work of people whom she knew and worked with back then.
This hack thinks he will be able to sell books and make money, and he is probably right. And for that reason he will never go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The entire point of this crap is to drive people to his websites as click-bait and HuffPo (which is in the process of being driven under by its masters at AOL (home of the once-popular but-now-dead) and won't exist for much longer).....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don't forget this one...
http://goo.gl/XXoyBN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... critical thinking skills....
Welcome to Texas, where in an uncharacteristic fit of honesty and clarity the GOP education platform of 2012 stated:
"We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority ." (2012 GOP education platform)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-s kills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html
Although they later tried to backpedal I'm fairly sure the Texas GOP aren't the only folks who might tend to think that same way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... critical thinking skills....
If someone is that against critical thinking and people being taught how to question what they are told, it's pretty much a given that they're up to no good and/or 'teaching' complete and utter rot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still works for Edison
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Bomb?
If something isn't done soon, Ayyadurai is going to permanently own "inventor of email" in search engines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google Bomb?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sham marriage
Why do I feel this is a sham, and after a few months she'll file for divorce and she'll be paying him alimony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just for Giggles
Maybe they'll PhotoShop Mike Masnick in with the Kardashian's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is this another example of how repeatedly debunking a claim doesn't help convince people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honorary "Dr. Email"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, them and also conservatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say let him take the credit for email
Let's say he sues Google for gMail. Wins a billion dollars, cause that's the going rate for suing the Goog. Google gets to counter-sue for the 50 trillion or so spam e-mails it filtered out of our inboxes and leaves Shiva with $1.00.
Everybody wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
60 Minutes whopper
"Six Cleveland cops have been killed in the last 20 years. Danger and stress take their toll --- a police officer's life expectancy here and around the country is 10 years shorter than the average American."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cleveland-police-60-minutes-bill-whitaker/
It is false that cops live 10 years shorter than the average American. In fact they may live slightly longer.
Politifact investigated the "10 years shorter" claim and debunked it in 2011.
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/aug/14/robert-barber/retired-police-capt ain-says-law-enforcement-office/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]