True Enough.

Farhad Manjoo’s book, True Enough, raises many thought-provoking issues pertaining to the media coverage, logistics, and varying interpretations of the attacks that occurred on 9/11.  Manjoo uses 9/11 as an example of a situation where personal perspectives collided with the media’s perspective, as a confusion of individual thought and general media propaganda occurred in the aftermath of the attacks on that day.  Using topic as the basis for his novel, Manjoo examines the differences between forming personal opinions based on individual experience and interpreting a situation based on how the media portrays the incident and conveys the news to the public.

One of the concepts that I found more interesting than others was the concept of “flashbulb memories” (found on page 65).  The idea behind these memories is that they are formed at moments when your mind is so shocked by a specific surprise that it remembers every aspect of your surroundings at those moments when you were surprised.  This was interesting to me because I can clearly remember where I was and what I was doing when I was told about the attacks on September 11^th, 2001.  This concept relates to Manjoo’s overall analysis of interpretations – while I did not witness the attacks firsthand, I was able to watch footage of the attacks on the news later that day.  I have a vivid memory, however, of how my day transpired on September 11^th.  The concepts are somewhat disconnected, but they are similar in the sense that, specifically on 9/11, as Manjoo pointed out in this section of the reading, “if you were alive on 9/11, what you remember is what happened at the scene. You saw it unfold. Your flashbulb memory is of the thing itself” (65). So, while I was not at the immediate scene of the attacks, I viewed them on television – a live filming of the attacks.  I did not analyze the attacks. I did not spend time studying them.  I just watched them unfold.  I witnessed history firsthand, as opposed to reading about it in a newspaper at a later time. 

Another aspect of this book that I found very interesting was Manjoo’s argument that the inclusion of a greater amount of media coverage of a situation can lead to greater uncertainty and confusion regarding the interpretation of that situation.  He makes a valid point.  A particular multimedia clip has the potential to be interpreted in so many different ways that, though the clip might have recorded an incident, the details of that incident might be blurred if the incident is over-analyzed. Over-analyzing situations can lead to false conclusions.  As Manjoo noted, “42 percent of Americans believe that ‘the U.S. government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11^th attacks” (65).  This outcry was based on the viewing and over-analyzing of “thousands of photographs and sounds recorded that day” (65). 

While there were other aspects of Manjoo’s examination of the media in this book that I found interesting, these were some of the concepts that have stuck with me.  I know that I will always remember every detail of my day on 9/11.  And the next time I watch the news, I will be sure to consider the angle from which the news is being covered.  I will consider the news station’s credibility before fully believing every aspect of the story.   More so than I did before reading this book, I can now better appreciate the media’s great influence on our lives.  And reflecting on what happened on 9/11 has made me think about the media has portrayed the events over the past decade.  There are always multiple interpretations of every story.  This book has made me think about the extent to which the media influences the opinions I shape.