True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society

by Farhad Manjoo

Why has punditry lately overtaken news? Why do lies seem to linger so long in the cultural subconscious even after they’ve been thoroughly discredited? And why, when more people than ever before are documenting the truth with laptops and digital cameras, does fact-free spin and propaganda seem to work so well?  T rue Enough  explores leading controversies of national politics, foreign affairs, science, and business, explaining how Americans have begun to organize themselves into echo chambers that harbor diametrically different facts—not merely opinions—from those of the larger culture.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Sociology, Psychology, Philosophy, History, Technology

250 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

Reviews

[Ross Blocher · Rating 5 out of 5]

The problem of misinformation isn't new, and True Enough provides a reminder from early 2008, when we were already living in a post-fact society. I read this at the tail end of 2024, in a United States that just put Donald Trump back in power for a second term. The examples in this book are about Rush Limbaugh, consumer reactions to Windows Vista and MacOS, smoking companies pumping money into "consumer choice" efforts, commercial VNRs (video news releases) creeping into news coverage, the swift boat veteran campaign against John Kerry, election conspiracies about Kerry's loss in Ohio, RFK Jr.'s peddling of false information... oh wait, that's still current in 2025. There was a very interesting bit of foreshadowing when Harlon Crowe came up as a right-wing financier of the lie-filled swift boat campaigns; Crowe has recently been back in the news for his bribing of supreme court justice Clarence Thomas... and his affinity for Nazi paraphernalia.

Along the way, Farhad Manjoo presents some of the biases and mistakes in cognition that fuel our collective need for "truthiness": Stephen Colbert's term for things that feel true, even if they aren't necessarily so. This includes the Dr. Fox effect (giving credence to someone with presentation skills rather than someone with real expertise), central vs. peripheral route processing (we make many decisions for non-rational reasons), fundamental attribution error (assuming the worst about others while assuming the best about ourselves), particularized vs. generalized trust (who we choose to listen to), and various other studies and tools that can help us stay grounded in the "reality-based community". Thanks for that gem, Karl Rove.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was my election 2008 attempt-to-escape-the-news read. And it served its purpose well. It covers an awful lot of ground, but its main point is this. People tend to interpret and understand new information in a way that accords with their existing views. Just as fans of opposing teams "see" different football games (and blame referees accordingly), consumers "see" different news reports. And although we look for truth (to a point), we are seeking information that jibes with our beliefs and affirmation of our views. And because the modern infosphere allows us all to get our news from any number of niche outlets (encouraging fragmentation and competition), it's created an atmosphere that is excessively partisan, and an atmosphere where conspiracy theories can thrive.

And so, there aren't red states and blue states, but there is certainly red news and blue news. The silver lining, perhaps, is that sometimes the truth is hard to lie about. When the Dow falls 6000 points over the course of a year, or gas prices go up 40 percent, it's hard to spin those facts. But are we winning the war on terror? Is there global warming? Is globalization hurting the country? Is Obama a socialist? These are harder questions to answer (and measure), and so they are susceptible to truthiness. And we believe who we want to believe. Reality splits along the lines of our preexisting beliefs.

Manjoo is also careful to point out that it's not just cult-following rednecks who are susceptible. The book reminded me of a Stephen Jay Gould reading which discussed the generational differences in scientific communities. If a new theory comes about, the old guard will forever try to make facts better comport with their existing worldviews rather than overhaul their existing belief system. And so it goes with everyone.

And I rather enjoy reading about and understanding human foibles. Except that when it goes along with a trend of anti-intellectualism, and when Americans are approximately as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution, it's not so heart-warming a story.

At this point in time, then, I would like to thank my parents for encouraging my curiosity, funding my education, watching PBS, and for not joining a cult. Amen.

The book is written so an eighth grader could understand it, but it borrows from a lot of social science scholarship. I would recommend it to any lay-person who thinks most television news is f-ing nuts.

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written 10 years ago, before Trump and “fake news” and when Facebook and Twitter were still in their infancy, this book made the argument that we’ve become a nation of individuals that have barricaded ourselves into to our respective idealogical corners. We interact only with those who agree with us, we search for news that only fits our worldview, and when we find a divergent viewpoint we either ignore it or choose from an endless stream of online information that seemingly refutes it. Rather than clarify what is true and what is not, the author argues persuasively that with the glut of information available to us today, we can now start with a belief and scour the web until we find something that validates it, no matter how spurious the information we find may be. It’s not truth in the end that matters as much as a desire to find something, anything, that says we are right. Since few of us travel outside of our idealogical echo chambers, fact becomes less important than belief.
If anything, America has become even more ideologically fragmented and distrustful of information from the mouths of “experts”. Don’t like what CNN or FOX tells you? You can find a guy holed up in a basement somewhere on the web who will tell you what you want to hear if you look hard enough.
Even if you were to strip the dated references to 9/11 conspiracy theory, Swift Boat Veterans, and the 2006 election from this book, the ideas presented here are arguably even more relevant than 10 years ago. It has become a nation where truth is what “I feel” rather than what can objectively shown to be fact. The author highlights some of the ways we’ve gotten to this point and the consequences but whole reading this book with horror, I can only imagine what he would think of the logical extension of his ideas in 2017.

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's really nothing new in Manjoo's book. Yes, I realize that I'm always being sold something. Yes, I realize that I have a pre-existing mindset. I know that there are right wing lobbyists that are always up to their nefarious ends...

The book wasn’t bad though. It just reiterated what I already knew. It relied heavily on some sociology experiments that were rather fun to read about, and heaven knows I would never pick up “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,” or “Journal of Medical Education.”

My biggest problem with the book was that it purported that it was, “not a partisan endeavor” on page six. Then it went on to be 88% left wing. Interestingly enough, one section talked about how the left was more open-minded than the right when receiving their media. (Selective Exposure.) I wondered if Manjoo was telling me I should put down the book, being a crazy right winger and all.

Not that it’s ALL leftist propaganda. He says that Bush legitimately won the Presidency, and that 9/11 was not an inside job. And maybe all you lefties out there will say that’s proof that he’s really a right-wing nut. But all throughout the rest of the book it’s left, left, left. Read it yourself and see.

[Nicholas Karpuk · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not living up to the title irks me, even if the book remains thought-provoking and readable.

When you entitle a book with something like, "Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society", there's an implication that you might drop a few bits of wisdom on what the hell you should actually do about the current state of affairs.

Farhad Manjoo sets up his arguments quite well, asserting that the changes in media and the way humans think has led to a fractured culture where people don't merely disagree but develop different versions of reality, but that's where it stops.

The slims last chapter discusses how much trust and optimism factor into a cultures' success were great, but it felt like the jumping off point for much deeper waters.

All the science on how people select data and how deeply biases run was all quite thought provoking, there are bits that will linger with me for a long time, but I finished it feeling like I left the drive through and found out too late that they forgot something I ordered.

With a more decisive conclusion this could have easily been a four or five star book.

[Wil Wheaton · Rating 4 out of 5]

True Enough is a quick and accessible read that never drags or becomes uninteresting. It's all very well-researched and very interesting, but I just wish that, having explained how and why we've come to live in a post-fact society, Farhad Manjoo had spent at least a few pages talking about how we can dig ourselves out of a world where Truthiness has taken over.

I thought this was a great companion to Drew Curtis' It's Not News It's Fark: How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap As News (disclosure: Drew is a close friend of mine) and would encourage you to read them together.

[Atila Iamarino · Rating 4 out of 5]

Foi escrito em 2008, mas explica esse ano de 2016 tranquilamente. Ainda na linha do The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data, mas explicando porque controvérsias persistem, resolvi ler e não me arrependi.

Farhad Manjoo pega uma série de controvérsias americanas, como o passado de John Kerry durante a guerra do Vietnã e o 9/11 para mostrar como controvérsias são criadas e a que servem. E como, depois que isso acontece, atingir um consenso é impossível.

A explicação de como estamos voltando ao tribalismo de interesses próximos e portanto de versões convenientes de verdades é bastante triste. Ainda mais porque ressoa com as notícias falsas e a polarização política que estão crescendo sem sinais de parar. Serve como um bom par para o The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data, contando como aceitamos versões da "verdade" – a truthiness do Stephen Colbert – que mais são convenientes.

Recomendo para quem quer refinar aquele amargor contra a humanidade.

[AdiTurbo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enlightening look at how we consume and process information, and what influences our choice of media outlets and content. Manjoo explains very clearly our biases, and how modern technology and historical changes affected the ways we now decide what is true. Very well-written, easy to understand, full of fascinating anecdotes and examples.

[BLACK CAT · Rating 3 out of 5]

Know who is sponsoring the information and where it is coming from.
Be aware of cognitive behavioral biases.
Try to be objective.
Read from source you don't normally read to enrich your point of view.
Open your mind a be ready to embrace different information and create an informed opinion.

[Will · Rating 5 out of 5]

When you are watching your favorite sports team, you may be seeing a completely different game than the spectators on the other side of the field. Through selective perception, people perceive reality based upon their personal biases; thus, an individual creates his or her own reality. Farhad Manjoo's True Enough provides insight into the dangers of a fragmented society. Manjoo discusses the 1951 football game between Princeton and Dartmouth. Fans on both sides walked away from the game with divergent views of what happened. They subconsciously chose to see - or not to see - certain actions in the game, depending on which team they supported. Princeton fans complained about penalties that Dartmouth fans could not even see. Manjoo suggests, "it was a matter of visual perception: their eyes were taking in the same game, but their brains seemed to be processing the events in two distinct ways."
True Enough unsettles me. The media's influence in society continues to grow stronger, especially as technology advances at rapid speed. Because there are so many different media sources, an individual will choose the source that best fits his or her preconceived beliefs. By choosing different news channels or newspapers, people may be exposed to different versions of the same story. Then, corporations and government agencies can create propaganda to exploit these discrepancies and manipulate the news that reaches an individual. The very concepts of truth and reality are being brought into question. True Enough is deeply troubling: if we subject ourselves to different versions of reality, then how can we discern between what is true and what is just true enough?

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you like Malcolm Gladwell-esque social science books about how other people think and why they act the way they do, this is the book for you. If you've ever wondered how people can be so blind to the facts, or draw such stupid conclusions, or watch Fox News, "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society" explains it all.

Manjoo, who now writes for Slate (but who wrote for Salon when the book was published) uses real-life case-studies to illustrate and illuminate how bias in the media, selective perception and selective exposure (two different things), cognitive dissonance (you think you know what it means but chances are you don't), "biased assimilation" and the brilliantly coined "Amatuerization of Expertise" conspire to make people believe things like the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" and the 9/11 "Truthers." Lest you think Manjoo just bashes the Right, he also discusses the reportedly rigged 2004 Ohio vote count that supposedly stole the vote from John Kerry and, hilariously, Mac fanaticism. (This may be the only serious social science book you'll ever read that uses the phrase "…Bill Gate's balls.")

After reading this, you'll never look at other people's opinions the same way again, and you'll be able to question and evaluate how you form your own.

[Margaret · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't like this book much, even though I entirely agree with the author's premise. I'm interested in the media and societal theories Manjoo discusses, but the writing was a bit dull and didn't hold my interest. I didn't learn anything from it that I didn't already know, probably because I'm already quite familiar with this subject.

[Lobstergirl · Rating 2 out of 5]

Soporific.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?" --George Carlin

"This isn't about what is . . . it's about what people think is. It's all imaginary anyway. That's why it's important. People only fight over imaginary things." --Neil Gaiman, American Gods

"If they think it's the truth, then they believe it, and if they believe it long enough, then it becomes the truth." --Jason Carter Eaton, The Facttracker

"Each of us thinks that on any given subject our views are essentially objective, the product of a dispassionate, realistic accounting of the world. This is naive realism, though, because we are incapable of recognizing the biases that operate upon us. . . . The bias we see in the news isn't strategic. It's real. It's real to us, at least, and that's as real as it gets. . . . We all harbor a different idea of what an objective news story should look like. . . . we all want objectivity, but we disagree about what objectivity is." --Farhad Manjoo, True Enough

Naive realism is just one of the dynamics Manjoo considers in this book as he looks at the polarization and fragmentation of opinions in modern society, opinions not just about how we should react to facts, but about the very facts themselves. It's a fascinating exploration, weaving together psychological studies and explanations, stories and examples from many realms, and major political examples. Was John Kerry a war hero or coward? Was the 9/11 World Trade Center attack planned by our government? Was there vote tampering in the 2004 presidential election? It all depends on who you listen to and how you interpret what they have to say. Those might seem like fringe examples, but Manjoo also considers much more everyday situations and makes a convincing case that there is no way for anyone to escape these dynamics. And that our modern media and connectedness has exacerbated them significantly.

While the title says the book is about "Learning to Live" in this kind of world, it's only in the epilogue ("Living in a World without Trust") that Manjoo really goes into what we should do about it. In this case, knowing is at least half the battle. We spend so much energy and time arguing about our convictions, convinced we're right, never realizing just all the factors at play in making us so. We would be better served if we'd all spend a bit more time carefully examining ourselves and our sources of information, uncovering the biases inherent in all of it, and being a little less strident about insistent upon our correctness.

What arises from all this, finally, is the condition Stephen Colbert diagnosed as "truthiness." Truthiness means you choose. But you're not just deciding a reality; you're also deciding to trust that reality--which means deciding to distrust the others. Whenever you choose, you're making a decision to form a particularized trust. This is the essence of the new medium. Navigating it requires forming bonds with those who are going the same way you are and rejecting those who've decided to see things differently.

Choosing means trusting some people and distrusting the rest. Choose wisely.

If you're not familiar with Colbert's concept of truthiness, you can watch the video where he defined it here (or read the Merriam-Webster definition here).

If you're intrigued enough to keep reading, I think Manjoo sums up his book really nicely in this excerpt:

Investigating the rise of carelessness toward "reality" is, of course, the headlong purpose of this book. But I've been driving at a theory more pervasive than the peculiar psychology of one president, the transgressions of a single dominant political machine, or the aims of certain powerful players. The truth about truthiness, I've argued, is cognitive: when we strung up the planet in fiber-optic cable, when we dissolved the mainstream media into prickly niches, and when each of us began to create and transmit our own pictures and sounds, we eased the path through which propaganda infects the culture.

Video news releases and satellite media tours suggest the ultimate cultural expression of these forces: they show us what might become of the world--or, indeed, what has become of the world--in an age of easy lying. Today, marketers, political operatives, and others who want to convince you of the virtue of some thing or idea--whether it is a Swiffer duster, a Nokia headset, a presidential candidate, a certain education policy, or the "truth" about global warming--can go about the business of persuasion covertly, without divulging their motives or even the fact that they're engaged in persuasion. Propagandists have become experts at mining the vulnerabilities of the many-media world (for instance, the dubious ethics of bottom line-watching local news operations). They've adopted a range of methods to exploit the current conditions--some are as benign as the covert placement of products in films and TV shows, but others are more questionable, such as planting VNRs on the news, or buying up pundits, or spreading their messages anonymously and "virally" through blogs, videos, and photos on the Web.

Technically, what these operatives aim to do is capture one or many of the forces I've discussed so far: selective exposure, in which we indulge information that pleases us and cocoon ourselves among others who think as we do; selective perception, in which we interpret documentary proof according to our long-held beliefs; peripheral processing, which produces a swarm of phony experts; and the hostile media phenomenon, which pushes the news away from objectivity and toward the sort of drivel one sees on cable.

In practice, what propagandists are doing is simpler to describe: they've mastered a new way to lie.

[Hayley Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

So my professor assigned a few of the chapters from the book to us to read over there course of a week but of course I didn’t read the instructions properly and thought I was supposed to read the entire book. Anyway, despite being mad about being forced to read I actually learned a lot and feel like the content of the book is so relevant to everything happening today, with the political divide in our country and how people from both sides refuse to believe any fact that makes their side look bad. Manjoo also really summed up how intolerant we are to people who don’t have the same beliefs as us which I thought was really eye opening. If you have time to self reflect a lot after reading this book, I recommend reading it.

[Tom Walsh · Rating 4 out of 5]

While dated, still relevant treatment of an important issue.

I didn’t realize when I bought this book that it was released in 2008 but that fact only adds to the relevance of the Case Studies Manjoo describes. He effectively lays out for us readers in 2022 the roots of the Disinformation Age we live in today.

The Swift Boat campaign of 2004, the attacks on the results of that year’s Presidential Election, the manufactured false justification for The Iraq War, all these examples laid the groundwork for the “Choose your own Reality World” we live in now.

That’s what makes this book worth reading today.
Manjoo warned us. We should have listened.

Four Stars. ****

[Hapzydeco · Rating 3 out of 5]

Copyrighted in 2008, some things might sound dated. But this short and easy read is well researched. If Manjoo accomplishes nothing else, let hope people will think twice about trusting what they just read.

[Tim Chang · Rating 4 out of 5]

this book spotlights some terrifying implications around the fragmentation and silo-ing of media...and the effects can already be clearly seen in the flavoring of news programs, blogs, etc. :(

Key points for me:
- selective exposure: psych coping mechanism to reinforce listening to what one wants to hear and already believes. E.g. Smoking/cancer test in 60s, Alive & Well AIDS,
- media fragmentation: people can live in their own parallel versions of realities not based on fact/science (John Kerry Swift Boat)
- social media can empower anyone to be a micro-Hitler?!
- people typically bias towards strong consonant and weak dissonant (easy to knock down), don't like strong dissonant. But conservatives are more picky, and stick to strong & weak consonant info
-social reality: (niche) group belief cements idea as fact and gives social proof. Used to be driven by propinquity, now online? (?? From local, to online tribe, back to locating selected tribe locally?). We choose people who suit us!

??? why isn't this stuff taught as the real "social studies" in school?!?

-selective perception: see the same thing, but experience it differently: ex: Archie from All in Family seen as hero to some?!
-danger of digital tools: will become harder to prove something is fake or real than shouting that it's real or fake?O -fragmentation of "experts" - hard to validate, can pick your own expert or stat to confirm your bias! Esp when how you say something > what you're saying
-impact on decision making process: central route (proper due diligence) vs peripheral route like Consumer Reports (shortcuts, cues, emotions, endorsements, experts)
-recognition heuristic: assume something you've heard of is more valuable...BUT these can easily be misleading: faked credentials or assumed expertise (being well-known for being well-known?)
-polarization on the news is national response to info fragmentation? Too many choices/channels, so each channel has to be more distinct in its angle/niche: biased assimilation

**too much conflicting data reinforces desire to seek out "friendly" data, further cements your own position!

-fundamental attribution error: we assume people do what they do because that's how the "are"
-people don't want objective reviews or news, but extreme validation of their biases/views??
-1996 was start of media/news fragmentation: Fox, MSNBC, DrudgeReport, etc: "mass media = thinly engaged audience"?

?? is there an opportunity to exploit need for hotly opposing views, creating artificial opponents and owning both? Equivalent of Virus and Anti-virus writing?

-"we all want objectivity, but disagree about what objectivity is"
-easier to intro bias into grand, sprawling subjects where info is complex, hard to make sense of, more than one interpretation
-Colbert's "Truthiness": feels good in your gut vs. Makes sense in your head!
-new ad format is like advertorial disguised as sensationalist news clip with fake expert? Subtle propaganda! Ex: Get Government of Our Back front campaign engineered by DCI Group for tobacco companies...who claimed no credit for it but got all other credible groups behind it.
-Stealth PR is new propaganda agent to "launder ideas" and distance the corporation from the message/agenda

???what's next? "DCI meets Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc"?? Or maybe ARM: (engineered) alternative reality marketing?? + analytics + biased demographic-based recruiting?

- modern info tools have splintered factions, emphasized truthiness, altered grasp of reality, empowers engineered deception, dissolves fabric of social trust --- social capital turning into "particularized trust" (ultimate result of social graph ala "people like me"??)...destroys Generalized Trust by creating stronger Us vs Them polarization (ala Small Town syndrome)

-you get to choose the reality you believe in now and burrow in!!

[Roger Leonhardt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Do we twist the things we read and watch to match our own beliefs? Do we dismiss those things that do not fit in our worldview? This book says "yes".

This Book was OK, but claiming to be non-partisan, he still has a bias. Those on the right are considered unintelligent (Rush Limbaugh) but the left just bend the truth (Truthers). He claims, according to research, Republicans are more likely to be bias in their information than Democrats.

He believes that those who disagree with Global warming are the ones who are bias. (Al Gore uses more power for his mansion than my whole neighborhood) John Carey was a war hero (who was a war protester who accused our soldiers of heinous atrocities). George Bush knew there were no WMDs. He even quotes left-wing "Salon" as a source of information, but does not do the same with the right.

He says that there is a Right-wing Bias in the news. One instance will prove that wrong - CHRIS MATTHEWS - On election night coverage, he said he was thankful for the hurricane in NY (because it gave Obama the election). He claimed Obama as the Messiah and has a man crush on him. I could name dozens maybe hundreds of other instances of people who are bias toward the left in the media. I'll bet I could count on one hand how many conservative stories I have seen on the major networks.

The problem with a book like this is, if you criticize it, the author would respond that you are trying to bend the information in this book to fit your bias. Does the author not have his own bias, or is he the only one who can overcome his presuppositions. There is just as much bias in this book as Fox News or MSNBC.

It is worth reading, but definitely not non-partisan. Read it with discernment.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would give this three stars for my own experience of reading it, but because I think the message is so important, and because I think there are a lot of people still blind to this, I tacked on a star for content. The author points out how 'reality' has been hijacked in all kinds of directions and a good deal of what we see and hear (on television, radio, internet) is deceptive - regardless of which side of an issue we agree with. He writes of the "amateurization of expertise", in which people take the views of 'experts' who have done a bit of online research or maybe read a couple of articles, or even just applied their own areas of knowledge to something they're looking in to, but who in fact are not qualified to address the complexities and ramifications of an issue, because those people are easier to understand than people whose training and experience truly qualify them to evaluate the situation. Thus genuine expertise is increasingly devalued and those who do know what they're talking about are discredited.

This book is alarming and depressing, and the author clearly sees no real hope of turning things around. I'm afraid I agree with him, but it can't hurt for us to at least know what's happening.

[Joseph · Rating 1 out of 5]

This could have been a good book, but Manjoo is the type of modern day political sycophant who doesn't understand that his base opinions are rooted in a far-left ideology. The theoretical points in the book are "true enough," but the overall impact of the book is lessened by Manjoo only attacking the right and making the left seem as though they are guilt-free in creating the depraved media culture that we're saddled with today.

[James Colwell · Rating 4 out of 5]

True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society, By Farhad Manjoo, gives an in depth analysis of how humans process information from a psychological standpoint and how recent changes in technology and media outlets has taken advantage of this and diminished objectivity and facts in modern American society. Manjoo uses a wide array of case studies – from the 2004 presidential election to the 1951 Princeton vs. Dartmouth football game – to show that we a certainly living in a post fact society.
This book examines what happens to audiences in a world with virtually unlimited choices of media as a result of technological advancements. We begin to select our reality according to our biases, we interpret evidence and expertise in a way that pleases us, and how news outlets are transforming to appease audiences in a culture of niches.
The book shows the decimation of fact in our society from a psychological standpoint. First, selective exposure: individuals tend to favor information that reinforces their pre-existing views while avoiding contradictory information. An example of this being republicans choosing to view Fox News and choosing not to view CNN and MSNBC, and vice versa, Democrats choosing to view MSNBC and all of its reporting’s as accurate while writing off all reporting from Fox News without viewing it (p.28). Second, social reality: people look to others to determine the “reality” around them. When many people around us feel that a certain thing is right or true – that group belief becomes an idea that we take as a fact (p.52). Lastly, selective perception: even when two people or groups of opposing ideologies overcome their tendency towards selective exposure and choose to watch the same thing, they still may end being pushed apart from each other. That’s because they wont be experiencing the “same” thing. Each of them will have seen, heard, felt and understood the “thing“ vastly differently than the others who have experienced it.
True Enough was constructed in a compelling fashion with many relevant examples form US politics, media, and psychological studies that make the concepts understandable. Farhad Manjoo uses a mixture of primary sources, such as his interview with Merrie Spaeth, and secondary sources, such as the psychological studies he reviews, to support his thesis.
After reading this book you become more aware of your own biases you use when selecting and interpreting media. We are all culprits of selective exposure and selective perception and we all live in our own social reality based on those around us. Although it can get a bit wordy at times True Enough is a compelling work and well worth the read.

[Robin Redden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published in 2008 this book could not be more relevant today. It's about how "belief" (or how something "feels" true in the absence of any facts - aka Colbert's "truthiness") triumphs over fact in the new age of media fragmentation and technology. Manjoo documents evidence and studies from psychology, sociology, political science and economics to prove his points. We ARE living two (or more) separate realities. Conservatives have a reality and Liberals have a reality and the two are very different. Our minds only allow in the info that supports our existing world view - thus we do not access any of the other "truth" that may be available. Both Conservatives and Liberals do it but studies show Conservatives are more likely to disregard info that doesn't conform to their world view. We are ALL being manipulated EVERY SINGLE DAY depending on the news in our feed, whether it is social media or traditional or cable television news. That doesn't mean it's FAKE, just simply that any individual may not be getting a COMPLETE picture. Companies produce marketing materials that legitimate news sources use as the base for actual news stories and do not disclose where that info is coming from. Many good examples from 9-11, the war in Iraq, the Kerry swift boat issue, and whether Bush actually won in 2000/2004 are examined. I highly recommend this one.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hot damn, this book is good! Funny story: a friend said he was reading “True Enough”, and it sounded interesting, so I grabbed a copy. It turns out, he was talking about a different book, but I couldn’t be happier that I accidentally got this book from Farhad Manjoo. This book was published in 2008, and it’s always amazing to me how misinformation, science denial, and conspiracy theories are nothing new. This book documents misinformation and the psychology of biases from the early 2000s covering conspiracies around election fraud, misinformation about John Kerry, and the rise of the internet. This was pre-social media, and there were still a ton of issues that I can only imagine are even worse now.

My favorite part about this book is that it dove into a lot of psychological studies about our biases, how we perceive events, and shaping our own reality, but it was different. Most of the books in recent years all refer back to the same studies, but Manjoo discussed a ton of studies that I never heard of. He’s also an excellent writer and storyteller, and I really wish he’d write an updated version with social media now playing a role. But, if you’re interested in this topic about why people believe and perceive the way they do, you need this book.

[Ted Neward · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book does a decent job of explaining how/why things happen (and happened), but as another reviewer on the book commented already, any book with a subtitle "Learning to Live...." needs to have some kind of prescriptive suggestions or solutions for how to deal with the problem described, and this one yields none. It doesn't even pretend to try--it just ends after listing the five different forms of "post-factual" behavior we see.

To be fair, this isn't really a new phenomenon--I suspect that if we were to talk to anthropologists and sociologists, we'd find parallels throughout history to what Manjoo sees in social media and other modern mechanisms. And much of what he discusses is really psychology more than "modern society".

But all that aside, it's a good starting point for anyone who's trying to understand how two intelligent, reasonable people can each read an article or listen to a news story and come away with entirely different facts.

[Marsha · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is pointed out that ideas that we had all thought concrete are really, really wishy-washy, questionable.
It is necessary to consider truth and reality which had heretofore been obvious and unquestionable as dependent on individual groups and personal policies rather than the expected interpretations. How a particular group or political party believes or sees things definitely influences and individual's interpretations.
Of course, I personally cannot possibly be affected by my crowd – I am far too aware of my surroundings and society for that. Wait. My eyes have been opened to the necessity of truly examining what is actually running the thoughts and media affecting me.
This book is somewhat outdated (I believe it was published in 2007, and it's currently 2023), and there have been huge changes in our government and society that weren't even considered in this, but boy, it makes me think.

[Pontus Enander · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I write this it’s 21 January 2021 and Biden replaced Trump as president yesterday. This book was published in 2008 but all through the read I’ve thought to myself;

“Wow, this (the stories and examples) is just like now! Haven’t we learned anything? Have we gone deeper into the rabbit hole? Was Trump and his movement and others around the world like him and it neither the beginning nor the end to this world of ‘truthiness’?”

The book is well researched, educating in psychology, marketing and more yet accessible for anyone. It’s interesting and some ways a bit scary but it isn’t the book that’s scary actually, rather how people can be deceived and manipulated. All in all this book is timeless. Read it, and make up your own view of it. ;)

[Lise · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed listening to this on Audible. I liked how well-researched it was, and I particularly liked that it was written back in 2008. Listening to it in 2022 gave me a lot of insight about how we came to be so divisive without using current-day issues that I may have strong predispositions to/against. It enables people to listen to the research and data-driven facts without having any strong preconceived notions that immediately engage their sense of defensiveness or stoking their feelings of righteousness.

I found it noteworthy that this book (and all it's examples) came before the explosion of disinformation via social media.

[Danielle Hopkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Incredibly eye opening and thought provoking. Very informative and helpful for anyone trying to learn about biases in politics. Even though it was written in 2008 the ideas are very evident in politics today but I appreciated the examples that were relevant during 2008 because it allows the reader to make connections to current events. I really loved the majority of the book but I found the ending to be very underwhelming and did not live up to the expectations that the rest of the book made me have.

[Zaron · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book probably deserves some credit for prescience since now everybody is basically writing a book like this, but Manjoo comes across as a bit of an annoying dick and spends a lot of time showing both sides are guilty of believing untrue things when the reality is that it's a significantly bigger problem on the right. It also does seem that big of an issue now that swift boat veterans lied about john kerry, probably better to find a newer version of a book that does this same thing and there's about a million of them post 2016.