Good Enough
This is a pretty well written book. It is short and easy to read. Manjoo recounts some peticular cases and some studies that seem to prove that, yes indeed, truth is subjective. The problem he really has is that he never really finds a conclusion worthy of the tag line on the cover of the book, "Learning to live in a post-fact society." He builds up to a fairly laughable apex where we are told of this evil PR firm called DGI. We are told that no one really knows what lurks inside the dim halls of this secretive enclave, but be assured, dear reader, it is no good! He can't really tell us what DGI is doing, but they are funded by the most wealthy and evil corporate men of our age. Surely, they are going to kidnap Truth itself and hold it for ransom! You can practically hear the Darth-vader-breath-sounds eminate from these final pages of his book. Look, it is an interesting read, but he just basically concludes by telling us that we are all screwed and we better be careful who we listen to. Like we didn't know that already?
Truthy enough
Just finished the book TRUE ENOUGH, by [.....] writer Farhad Manjoo. A fascinating look at the manipulation and re-definition of truth in a media-saturated age. There's some repetition of basic arguments, but they bear repeating.
Something that seems obvious in retrospect: the sheer volume of data available about the 9/11 attacks fueled the avalanche of conspiracy theories. If you have millions of images to study, you can select evidence for anything.
His analysis of how the Swift Boat attack worked is worth the price of the book, which just came out in paperback. (I checked it out of the MIT library, but will buy a copy for my shelf.)
Joe Haldeman
OK, truthiness, but what do we do about it?
Pop shows like The Cobert Report can cut through lofty political and sociological analysis to the chase and open the truth behind the laughter with expedience and precision allusive to pundits and teachers. Society hears, understands, laughs and isn't always sure why. Thetruthiness of media, and the disconnect to any empirical truth can be the downfall of our civilization, and we laugh harder (sometimes when it hurts too much to cry). True Enough examines why the media tells half truths and more importantly why we believe them. This is an important book in the path to understanding how our collective conscious builds its reality.
Manjoo aggregates examples of media fragmentation (using different media to reinforce an idea as truth), selective exposure (subconsciously limiting information input to sources that agree with predisposed ideals), weak and strong consonant and dissonant (arguments in disagreement or agreement), social reality, the propinquity effect, and naive realism. He brings many sources together to illustrate how a society can only see what it wants to see and believe a truth it has already concluded true, before the inconvenient consequence of empirical data and investigation.
The research is the most important accomplishment of this work, bringing together social scholars, behavioral scientists and real world examples of mass-misinformation. My only complaint is supposed novelty of this idea that believing only what we want to be true and/or what our in-groups tells us is true, and that this new societal blight flowered from a new media that makes information easier, quicker. Mob mentality, group think and naive realism have always existed, even in small ancient tribes. We feel there is more crime, but there is simply more people and more broadcast and focus on crime. We seemis information on the rise, but we simply have more to choose our truth from, by more voices we agree with. We have more media, but simply more to pose against one another and categorize as right or left. All this may be a quickening, but nothing new to our culture or society.
Our focus, and hopefully Manjoo's next work, should be on how to educate ourselves on information acceptance, openness - yes, suspicion - but not isolation from the other truths. We can find our own truths by investigating many sources, but that investigation skill set needs to be taught in colleges and K-12 and extension schools andPSAs , to dawn an era of new critical thought, where we finally understand that truth is always subjective (even the postulates in this book come from a finite source pool, all supporting) and that empirical evidence may also be suspect as we learn more about our senses. Imagine the potential if we let go of this idea of truth and break free to swim the abyss of information without judgement. I know this is an ideal. We must filter information and data to come to conclusions. I simply suggest we spend more time not knowing to stumble onto new ideas, concepts and perspectives that may grow our society.
Avoiding the Bias Trap
In the last few decades the media has become increasingly polarized across party lines. Conservatives have their own 24/7 news network, their own newspapers, magazines, radio stations, publishing companies. Heck, conservatives don't even have to dip their delicate toes in the perceived liberal pool known as Wikipedia when they have Conservapedia to give them their facts. Liberals have their media but it pales in comparison to the complete parallel universe set up on the right. The point is that it's easy to become insulated in a cocoon of partisan bias to the point where all our information is tailored to confirm preexisting beliefs.
The author uses two examples to show how partisans allow bias to shape their perception of reality. On the right is the Swift Boating of John Kerry and in true `pox on both houses' spirit the author hits the left on the theory that the 2004 election was stolen from Sen. Kerry in Ohio. As a native Ohioan I know a little bit about the subject. Mr. Manjoo mentions that conservative Ken Blackwell was, at the time, the secretary of state AND chief elections officer creating a rather blatant conflict of interest. What he fails to mention was that Blackwell was also honorary co-chair of the Committee to re-elect George W. Bush. Blackwell had been issuing capricious pre-election rulings seeming designed to suppress voting and failed to supply sufficient voting equipment to many black communities (ironically Blackwell is himself black). The author turns to expert opinion that even without voter suppression Bush would still have won. The fact that the GOP even ATTEMPTED to swing the election, even if their efforts were unnecessary would certainly lend credence to the theory that they may have stolen the state. Given the events of 2000 I don't think it would be any stretch of the imagination to believe that the GOP would try to steal the election in an important swing state. They had means, motive and opportunity. The Swift boating of John Kerry, on the other hand, was created from whole cloth and pushed by the GOP establishment.
The fact is that these two examples are far from equal. From Global Warming to Intelligent Design to Saddam Hussein's supposed involvement in 9/11, Republican's are far more likely to believe utter BS while ignoring expert opinion. The author even points to several studies that show this to be true. So here is where it gets tricky. Is it true, as the author states, that Republican's are more likely to give into their bias or is it just my own bias that leads me to this belief. How can people avoid falling into the bias trap? I think the first step would be to be vigilant and self aware and read a book like this as a check on your self. To me the difference between the Swift boating and the Ohio election results seems stark but to a Republican they will likely see the opposite.
One angle the writer fails to mention is the results when the media tries bending over backwards to remain fully objective and essentially becoming stenographers. Permitting politicians and pundits to speak without analyzing the veracity of their statements turns any argument into a he says/she says situation with viewers falling in line with whatever side holds their point of view. Also, there is no mention of the media feedback loop. Viewers tend to watch news that validates their beliefs thus reinforcing and expanding those beliefs causing them to seek even more partisan sources.
It's easy to slip into biased thinking because it's effortless. No reason to expend energy thinking when all your beliefs are handed to you. This is why partisans tend to follow the party line across the board. The author quotes psychologist Lee Ross who wrote, "If we think we see the world the way it is... then we think that reasonable people ought to agree with us, we conclude that they are not reasonable - they're biased" I am definitely guilty of this. For instance it is mind blowing to me that half of registered voters could possibly think that a candidate with policies so close to GWB would make a good president. How can they be so blind? And when I watched the Bush/Kerry debates in 2004, Kerry seemed poised and controlled while Bush looked petulant and abrasive, meanwhile Republican's I knew thought Bush won the debates. I thought Sarah Palin was embarrassing in her first interview by Charles Gibson but others thought she hit a home run. This is the point where I need to step back, reassess myself to see if I've fallen into the bias trap... or maybe I'm just correct.
Read it!
Thought-provoking conclusions. He writes (well) about things you already know, but he fleshes them out far more than you've ever considered. This book will change the way you see the world. If enough of you read this book, it will change our country.
(19 reviews)
