It's not simply just the truth anymore. Farhad Manjoo's book True Enough dances upon the subject of truth in the media. What is the truth anymore? Who do we believe? The news networks? The Internet? Can we even believe them anymore?
Manjoo's book is a series of examples of why there really is no such thing as truth in the media anymore. My professor deems this book as "very relevant to today's shift in media." Now what does he mean by that?
With the drastic change in technology over the recent years, it is incredibly difficult to deem what is true and what isn't. The Internet makes the playing field even for everyone, making journalists' jobs even harder than they were before. It does make things easier in terms of finding information fast, but the biggest problem with that advantage is that the credibility of that information is uncertain with the Internet.
Joe Shmoe can write a story and put it on the Internet. Reporters for the newspaper and TV stations can also write the same story and put it on the Internet. Naturally, we would read the story from the newspaper or TV station's website before reading Shmoe's story, but what if Shmoe's story contradicts the story the media wrote? Which one is true? Joe Shmoe claims he was there but we gravitate to the media's story because they're the professionals, but does that mean they reported the truth? Or is Shmoe lying?
Manjoo explains in his book how truth can be altered no matter what way it is reported in the media. People lie, photos can be photoshopped, video can be edited, people have different sides to the story - all of these are the obstacles and, according to Manjoo, also benefits of not just the journalist, but the journalist's audience, too.
How can they be both? Well, it's very simple if you read the book, but I'll break it down for you. In True Enough, there is an example of each of these obstacles and benefits.
Photos can be photoshopped. Manjoo talks about the incident where a photo of an American soldier standing next to a young Iraqi boy that's holding a sign that says "Lcpl Boudreaux killed my dad then knocked up my sister" ends up in an Islamic man's email inbox. The way Manjoo wrote about this made it sound like it was really true until several pages later he revealed that the picture had been photoshopped. The sign really said, "Lcpl Boudreaux saved my dad then rescued my sister."
But during that time I was reading before I read what it was supposed to say, I really thought so lowly of this Boudreaux guy. I thought he was absolute scum to write the sign and have the little Iraqi boy smile and hold it. But it was all fake. Someone photoshopped it and emailed it to the communications director for the civil rights group called Council on American-Islamic Relations. Needless to say, he was outraged and it caused a big scandal in the media. But who knows if that was the real picture? I'll let you decide. You can see it here.
Video can be edited. Not only can video be cut up into pieces like it usually is, it can be slowed down and sped up, it can be with or without audio, and just those simple changes can drastically change the message of that video.
For example, Manjoo talks about his interview with a man that believes that the incident on 9/11 was a conspiracy and swears that the twin towers were hit with missiles instead of the plane. Manjoo says this guy points out when the video is slowed down and zoomed in, you can see a hint of orange right at the belly of the plane just before it hits the building. Manjoo doesn't believe him, but that isn't changing that guy's mind. He will believe it until the day he dies because that is what he sees. Manjoo says that others have argued that the orange is the reflection of the sun on the plane's belly.
There's a good bit of Manjoo's book that talks about selective exposure, where we select the messages we consume and avoid the ones that we disagree with. For example, people with right-wing ideologies might prefer to watch Fox News instead of CNN, or listen to Rush Limbaugh instead of watch Anderson Cooper.
I think this selective exposure concept is fascinating. The different types of messages and the way we accept them is even more fascinating. There is weak and strong dissonance, and there is weak and strong consonance. Dissonant messages are messages that we don't particularly agree with. Whether it is strong or weak is determined by its arguability. If the message is easily proven wrong, it is a weak message. If the message is supported by facts and evidence, then the message is likely to be considered strong.
Manjoo says "weak dissonance is the engine of cable talk." I agree wholeheartedly. He uses Bill O'Reilly's show as an example. He is not the only show that thrives off of weak consonance. It's every political show I've seen. Bill Maher, Anderson Cooper, Rush Linbaugh, Glenn Beck; they all live and breath pointing out their enemy party's mistakes. It makes them look good and the other guys bad.
In spite of all these ideas on how we view, learn and process the messages we see in the media, it all boils down to whose version of the truth you're going to like the best. Do you like what Bill Maher says? Watch his show some more. Do you think Joe Shmoe was right? Manjoo predicts that with technology making every form of media more accessible and more available, people are going to watch what they agree with. We have the choice to do so, and we'll always take advantage of it as long as we have the access to it.
