itsdanbooks's review
2.0
I honestly didn’t know how to rate this book since it was almost a DNF for me (which I try very hard to avoid).
Over the past 20 years, there has been a dangerous fusing of entertainment, politics, outrage and incivility. Conspiracy theories, anti-science and the embrace of world views that are governed not by facts and logic, but instead, by blind devotion to party, but more importantly how blindly devoted to your party you are.
I want to be VERY clear, because this review is going to sound like I’m some GOP Apologist, but I am not.
I absolutely, 100% believe that the problem is larger on the right than it is on the left (although the left also has there own set of problems to grapple with) — as Kakutani cited in the book, an interview with a fake news (just to be clear, I use that in the literal sense of the words, not the Trumpian meaning) website author revealed that it was significantly harder to get Fake News stories to go viral that appealed to their more nativist sides.
On one-hand, a sizable chunk of this book is a pompous, biased, elitist screed rather than an objective exploration of Post-Truth; the first four chapters are largely just political opinion and speculation with the occasional nugget of gold, but on the other hand, the remaining five chapters are quite good.
The screed is largely criticisms that range from the banal — such as on page 99 where Kakutani laments about the horrors of typos in the former Presidents’ tweets (“He is nonchalant about spelling. […] He also tweeted that he was honered [sic] to serve you, the great American People, as your 45th President of the United States!”) or typos in reports from various Federal agencies and departments to ones that are completely valid (such as the removal of reports from Federal websites that countered the administrations’ policies regarding climate change).
Kakutani laments about filter bubbles, algorithmic silos, one-sided politics, how compromise is treated as a dirty word and how we can’t have respectful conversations with anyone who isn’t in our ideological bubble — this is done while writing a book that makes zero attempts at objectivity. This book is largely littered with one-sided examples and does nothing to encourage introspection by the reader of their own perception of truth.
There is no exploration of the same populist sentiments on the left that led to surging popularity of left populist candidates like Bernie Sanders, nor the refusal to follow what the science says when it reaches an uncomfortable conclusion (such as the safety of things like GMOs or Nuclear Energy) or embracing their own conspiracy theories (I'll get more into this shortly).
Oddly enough, for a book on the so-called “The Death of Truth”, the book seems quite heavily invested in the Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory which was not established by the Mueller report (which “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”).
Ironic.
Now, granted, this book was published before the Mueller report had concluded, although it didn’t shy from treating the conspiracy as cold-hard fact, despite said report ultimately not reaching that conclusion.
But on the other hand, I think Chapters 5 through 9 are a breath of fresh air compared to the beginning of the book -- they actually cover the topic that the title promises. Earlier chapters are honestly held back by the authors injection of speculation and their personal politics.
I felt that there was much more opportunity to make comparisons to [b:Nineteen Eighty-Four|5471|Nineteen Eighty-Four|George Orwell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1617559981l/5471._SX50_.jpg|153313] by George Orwell, notably concepts like Newspeak (PC, or even Trumps' use of language in general), Prolefeed (comparing it to social media), Memoryhole (cancel culture, the forms that exist on both the left AND right), Proles vs. Bourgeoise ("patriots" vs. the "elites"), 2+2=5 (Notably how his supporters take anything he says as gospel) or even (Spoiler from 70+ year old book :
I strongly believe that [b:The Death Of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters|26720949|The Death Of Expertise The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters|Thomas M. Nichols|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1465583375l/26720949._SY75_.jpg|46750905] by Tom Nichols is a significantly better exploration of this topic. If you do decide to pick this book up, I'd start at Chapter 5 and read through the Epilogue, and then return to Chapters 1 through 4. It will be a better read, particularly if you can get past how pompous this book is.
Realistically, this book is a 2.5, but I believe that books need to rise to that next level and rounding up is a way of rewarding opportunity that wasn't taken advantage of.
Over the past 20 years, there has been a dangerous fusing of entertainment, politics, outrage and incivility. Conspiracy theories, anti-science and the embrace of world views that are governed not by facts and logic, but instead, by blind devotion to party, but more importantly how blindly devoted to your party you are.
I want to be VERY clear, because this review is going to sound like I’m some GOP Apologist, but I am not.
I absolutely, 100% believe that the problem is larger on the right than it is on the left (although the left also has there own set of problems to grapple with) — as Kakutani cited in the book, an interview with a fake news (just to be clear, I use that in the literal sense of the words, not the Trumpian meaning) website author revealed that it was significantly harder to get Fake News stories to go viral that appealed to their more nativist sides.
On one-hand, a sizable chunk of this book is a pompous, biased, elitist screed rather than an objective exploration of Post-Truth; the first four chapters are largely just political opinion and speculation with the occasional nugget of gold, but on the other hand, the remaining five chapters are quite good.
The screed is largely criticisms that range from the banal — such as on page 99 where Kakutani laments about the horrors of typos in the former Presidents’ tweets (“He is nonchalant about spelling. […] He also tweeted that he was honered [sic] to serve you, the great American People, as your 45th President of the United States!”) or typos in reports from various Federal agencies and departments to ones that are completely valid (such as the removal of reports from Federal websites that countered the administrations’ policies regarding climate change).
Kakutani laments about filter bubbles, algorithmic silos, one-sided politics, how compromise is treated as a dirty word and how we can’t have respectful conversations with anyone who isn’t in our ideological bubble — this is done while writing a book that makes zero attempts at objectivity. This book is largely littered with one-sided examples and does nothing to encourage introspection by the reader of their own perception of truth.
There is no exploration of the same populist sentiments on the left that led to surging popularity of left populist candidates like Bernie Sanders, nor the refusal to follow what the science says when it reaches an uncomfortable conclusion (such as the safety of things like GMOs or Nuclear Energy) or embracing their own conspiracy theories (I'll get more into this shortly).
Oddly enough, for a book on the so-called “The Death of Truth”, the book seems quite heavily invested in the Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theory which was not established by the Mueller report (which “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities”).
Ironic.
Now, granted, this book was published before the Mueller report had concluded, although it didn’t shy from treating the conspiracy as cold-hard fact, despite said report ultimately not reaching that conclusion.
But on the other hand, I think Chapters 5 through 9 are a breath of fresh air compared to the beginning of the book -- they actually cover the topic that the title promises. Earlier chapters are honestly held back by the authors injection of speculation and their personal politics.
I felt that there was much more opportunity to make comparisons to [b:Nineteen Eighty-Four|5471|Nineteen Eighty-Four|George Orwell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1617559981l/5471._SX50_.jpg|153313] by George Orwell, notably concepts like Newspeak (PC, or even Trumps' use of language in general), Prolefeed (comparing it to social media), Memoryhole (cancel culture, the forms that exist on both the left AND right), Proles vs. Bourgeoise ("patriots" vs. the "elites"), 2+2=5 (Notably how his supporters take anything he says as gospel) or even (Spoiler from 70+ year old book :
Spoiler
Emmanuel Goldstein -- establishing fake boogeymen to blame for your problems on — those are only a small sampling that could have been expanded upon. Additionally, there was also opportunity to cover an under-appreciated Orwell masterpiece, [b:Politics and the English Language|6324725|Politics and the English Language|George Orwell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1260733026l/6324725._SY75_.jpg|6510269].I strongly believe that [b:The Death Of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters|26720949|The Death Of Expertise The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters|Thomas M. Nichols|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1465583375l/26720949._SY75_.jpg|46750905] by Tom Nichols is a significantly better exploration of this topic. If you do decide to pick this book up, I'd start at Chapter 5 and read through the Epilogue, and then return to Chapters 1 through 4. It will be a better read, particularly if you can get past how pompous this book is.
Realistically, this book is a 2.5, but I believe that books need to rise to that next level and rounding up is a way of rewarding opportunity that wasn't taken advantage of.
dllh's review against another edition
4.0
I sometimes see on Facebook little memes or links to things about how the U.S. is heading pretty assertively down the same sort of road that Germany did heading into the middle of the last century. I haven't quite written it off as hyperbole, but I've also not given it a whole lot of credence because, you know, it's the internet. Kakutani in this book offers some compelling evidence that we may indeed be on that track, and she writes about some of what has led us there even before Trump took the political stage. She writes some about the culture wars and about postmodernism and its use -- in particular its tendency toward a sort of relativism or -- to sort of perversely try to prop up right-wing positions, for example the proposal that we should teach junk science alongside science because they're merely different perspectives and both deserve to be heard.
The book is not comprehensive, but it is certainly terrifying. It's a quick read that I found useful. Kakutani is certainly partisan and makes no real bones about it, so if you seek something that feels like it gives equal consideration to the Trump viewpoint, this is not the book for you.
The book is not comprehensive, but it is certainly terrifying. It's a quick read that I found useful. Kakutani is certainly partisan and makes no real bones about it, so if you seek something that feels like it gives equal consideration to the Trump viewpoint, this is not the book for you.
guinness74's review
informative
fast-paced
3.5
Reading, at times, like a journal article or thesis, I felt a little underwhelmed by the writing. It seemed entirely too academic. But, then, Kakutani spoke about the accepted norms of discourse being abused and turned inside out and I began to realize I had experienced these same notions, wondering if I was losing my ability to comprehend reality. The book is definitely biased, but only because it has to be. Trump’s destruction of political and social mores has made a balanced political conversation impossible. Reality, turned on its head, is like Alice’s adventures where nothing is as it seems and is disconcerting for anyone who still accepts the notion of actual truth.
ambwreadsbooks's review against another edition
3.0
I almost DNF’ed this book like 3 different times because it was making me so anxious about the state of our world. Which is probably the point. Well researched and presented but man… I’m stressed
catbooking's review against another edition
3.0
I know this was intended as a current events snapshot and not really a deep investigative look into things, but when the topic of discussion is lack of depth in discussions it seems rather hypocritical. My other issues was with presenting some aspects of media influence as if it was a newly discovered thing, while Chomsky wrote about it decades ago, only he didn't focus on fascism communism and the Russian boogeyman but on western media.
Mostly, I used the book to find other books to read, ones I have not yet had the pleasure of reading, but on the whole I was a bit uncomfortable with the whole hypocrisy thing.
Mostly, I used the book to find other books to read, ones I have not yet had the pleasure of reading, but on the whole I was a bit uncomfortable with the whole hypocrisy thing.