SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet dept.
Mike Masnick over at Techdirt reports that the Huffington Post is running a multi-part story on V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, the man who invented email. The only problem is, he didn't. And the mainstream media were worried that their standard of journalistic excellence wouldn't be continued in the online world? The tech reporting seems to be of exactly the same quality to me.
I thought this story had ended a few years ago. Back in 2012, we wrote about how the Washington Post and some other big name media outlets were claiming that a guy named V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai had "invented email" in 1978. The problem was that it wasn't even close to true and relied on a number of total misconceptions about email, software and copyright law. Ayyadurai and some of his friends have continued to play up the claim that he "invented" email, but it simply was never true, and it's reaching a level that seems truly bizarre. Ayyadurai may have done some interesting things, but his continued false insistence that he invented email is reaching really questionable levels. And, now it's gone absolutely nutty, with the Huffington Post running a multi-part series (up to five separate articles so far — all done in the past 10 days) all playing up misleading claims saying that Ayyadurai invented email, even though even a basic understanding of the history shows he did not.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 03 2014, @01:51PM
The problem is it is not the fault of the Huff post. Ayyadurai is hellbent on claiming to be the inventor email, he even has a website dedicated to fighting for his title of inventor: http://www.inventorofemail.com/ [inventorofemail.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by opinionated_science on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:11PM
it would seem that prior art existed...
http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/email.html [nethistory.info]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:17PM
The thing is it is *their* job to fact check a bit.
Unfortunately most 'news' these days picks an opinion then espouses that opinion as fact. So since they know their own opinions which they consider to be fact they check little. However, it does not matter really as they are typically echo chambers meant to make people think they are getting news. When they are just hearing what they want to hear. So they can sell us... what is called 'modern news' which is little more than thinly veiled advertisement/tracking platforms. Your shampoo may be killing you, find out after the break. According to my no-script it has 22 different outside domain script usages. It also has many outside domains it that are tracking which items you hover over and if you even looked at the page tracking tab clicks.
However, now that they have been called out on it. They have decided they are right and the rest of history is wrong (again opinion presented as fact). By doing their usual hit piece and pulling out random facts and putting them together to tell a different 'narrative'. They have done this for years and use it to good effect in the D vs R debates. They are *very* good at it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-j-nightingale/the-history-of-email-five-myths-about-email_b_5756340.html [huffingtonpost.com]
People are already calling them out in the rebuttal.
It doesnt matter though they can bury the story off the front page. Then bring it up again. Eventually people get tired of correcting them and move on. That way they can get the narrative they really want of 'we found out the secret truth about email'. This in reality is little more than fluff piece. But they have decided to circle the wagons on it. Why? Because they want to be known as a platform of truth. They can rescope the arguments to be that way. When the reality is they are a platform of advertisements. They can use a 'correct' fluff piece to show they are the place to go for 'real' information. It is actually quiet masterful in execution. They may even believe their own kool aid which makes it easier for them to write it. As who doesnt like a group of people all telling each other they are right about something.
This guy put it best about why we allow it to go on. http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2014/03/smart-people-dont-read-the-news.php [whattofix.com]
It is why I dont watch 'the news'. As many times it is little more than to generate arguments which huffingtonpost is exceedingly good at. Part of their narrative as a place to find out things and 'help us pay the bills a bit with this advertisement'.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 03 2014, @06:37PM
I can agree with your points, especially this one. I stopped reading newspapers and watching TV news a long time ago. I am not going on a rant but they do more far damage to society than the bad things they supposedly report.