交流一下我的理解
这本书的google链接上有一个书评, 对理解这篇文章(实际是一本书的前言)很有帮助.
按照书评的说法, 这篇文章标题里的 true 是指"给人真实的感觉", 或者说是"让人能在没有证据的情况下也会相信". 要我说, 这里的"感觉"可如果换成"直觉"甚至是"幻觉", 也许更能说明问题. 所以, 这个词才会用enough 修饰, 因为这里的真实与否, 已经不是一组二元状态, 而是程度, 感觉的强烈程度.
In 2005, Stephen Colbert catapulted the word “truthiness”—the quality of an idea “feeling” true without any backup evidence—into the public consciousness. Salon blogger Manjoo expands upon this concept in his perceptive analysis of the status of truth in the digital age, critiquing a Rashomon -like world in which competing versions of truth vie for our attention. Driven by research and study, the book relies on abstract psychological and sociological concepts, such as “selective exposure” and “peripheral processing,” though these are fleshed out with examples from American history, politics and media. For example, Manjoo demonstrates how the Swift Boat Veterans' negative campaign derailed John Kerry's 2004 presidential run. He also points out that the sheer quantity of 9/11 imagery has engendered more conspiracy theories, not fewer—demonstrating, he says, the disjunction between truth and proof. Manjoo rounds out his analysis by examining the workings of “partisan news realities,” and he points out that the first casualty in these truth wars is a basic human and civic need: trust. Though several of the author's ideas are repetitiously threaded through his narrative, Manjoo has produced an engaging, illustrative look at the dangers of living in an oversaturated media world. (Mar.)
其实, 若抛开文章中的众多新词, 作者所试图解释的这个问题, 其实正是我们上论坛常常感到困惑的: 为何截然相反的两种极端命题, 各自都有极有分量的人和意见表示赞同? 这究竟是怎么回事, 是否理性对此已经无能为力了?
所以, 这篇文章其实并不像表面看起来那样, 似乎是小众的, 文艺的, 强自说愁的文字; 恰恰相反, 作者实际上是在挑战我们社会当中一个具有广泛存在的谜题.