I might be inclined to amend your thesis to indicate that it is now easier than before to delude ourselves. It's now very easy to tune into media "channels" (whether radio, television, email lists, web sites, blogs, etc.) which present viewpoints which we agree with. The incurious, or unskeptical then find only information which corroborates the view which they are predisposed to.

In essence one aspect of "new" media is the ability to more easily engage in a form of de-facto segregation.

This contrasts with the past in that - while we now have a wealth of information at our fingertips it is a skill to wade through it and separate the wheat from the chaff and the signal from the noise. Before with relatively monolithic media and mediums - you got your information from relatively few sources. And while there may have been some self-delusion involved the influence of deliberate deception had much more weight than it does now. Instead of only having one viewpoint to listen to in the form of some sanctioned media outlet - we now have thousands and thousands to choose from. Yet, when we choose we tend to zero in on sources which conform; and by doing so we believe we are reinforcing, and providing substantiation to information.

I suppose it's a subtle difference - and ultimately the end effect may not be all that different: different means, same end.

Enjoyed reading it. The way I saw it there wasn't much to go on about "who won", and that's perhaps the wrong way to frame it anyway.

It seemed to boil down to ideals vs. reality, where you were the realist and he the idealist; what teh intarwebz can do and might enable vs. what it actually seems to have done and seems to have enabled. Facts on that, either way, are pretty slippery.

I'd have to say I fall more on your side of the equation there...and that's of course my opinion, not a fact. Unfortunately, I'm as biased as anybody else. I wish that merely recognizing it could make me feel as though I've transcended it.

I'm not sure if I'll have the bandwidth to take in your book anytime soon, but I think it's the Lord's work you're doing in exploring the topic, at least. I find it and its related issues very very interesting.

Anyone with a room temp IQ and a computer can become an instant expert. We can say whatever we like and remain largely unchallenged. As a result a sufficient # of equally dull morons will flock to our truths and embrace them as their own. Soon enough it becomes its own religion and that is beyond criticism on its face. Now even faith has fact-like attributes.

That's why we live in this post modern Gen-Y world where there's no right or wrong, no truth, no facts, only good and bad feelings we hold about our own and others' agendas.

Farhad,

I am looking forward to reading your book; I agree with your basic diagnosis that the very nature of "truth" has become distorted in our national discourse. However, I fear that I too will disagree with your conclusions. My biggest objection is that you seem to treat different versions of "facts" equally. In the last eight years, we have had a President who lies and distorts truth, falsely linking Iraq and Al Queda as a pretext for war, claiming scientists are deeply divided over climate change when in fact they are not. You are right to recognize the Fox News viewer as hewing to his own "facts" but you are wrong to give his information equal weight to what is still recognized as truth by any post-Enlightenment standards. Facts ought to be non-partisan, but reporters and pundits who insist on "objectivity" are doing the real disservice by attempting to give equal weight to "both sides" (fact and falsehood) and not coming down clearly on the side of truth, even if that brings accusations of bias.

I am also a bit dismayed to see you lay blame for this state of affairs directly on the technology itself. Look farther back in history past the television age, to the golden age of "yellow journalism" when pamphleteers and gazettes took advantage of the new media of the day. William Randolph Hearst thought nothing of publishing biased and inaccurate information in his papers to suit his political ends, and is popularly credited with telling a photographer reporting no sign of battle in 1896 Cuba, "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war."

Bias is neither new, nor the fault of the technology with which it is expressed. Your discussion of the difficulty in establishing truth in our public discourse does a service by correctly identifying problems, but a disservice by continuing the mistakes that led us there.

Growing up in the fifties, I swear before I even learned how, I was taught "You can't believe everything, you read". And yet we didn't feel deceived. We trusted reporters' good faith while accepting sources were secondary, information was limited, and honest mistakes could be made and go uncorrected for lack of accessible truth. Uncertainty was implicit. To be called a know-it-all or opinionated was then an insult that is now unimaginable. People entertained conspiracy theories for fun, but a pervasive awareness that we just couldn't know dissuaded belief.

Somebody needs attention. Somebody bashes Apple and the people who like their products.

Yawn....

Pretty sad to base your whole book on such a thin reeds.

The Apple phenomena is far more complex than simple Internet "truthiness". It has to do with the transformative nature of the personal computer created by Apple (My gradepoint average from high school to college went up by 1.5--a difference I largely credit to my Apple IIc computer).

And Apple fans went through a long period of extremely biased and stupid reporting. It gave us an attitude (pugnacious) and a resolve not to let cheap slight go unanswered. It was self-preservation against a bland bottom-line corporate accountant attack.

So we go overboard sometimes these days. It isn't the Internet's fault. We were crazy long before Al Gore created the Internet on his PowerBook in between destroying an invasion of alien spacecraft and inspiring "Love Story."

What? You never heard about that? It's a conspiracy, Man!