Automatic Attitudinal Response

While I try to stay as objective as I possibly can on various topics of discussion, my personal experiences and influences are major factors in the attitudes that I automatically have. This semester we have been discussing a lot of things about President Trump, as we rightfully should. It is important for citizens to be critical and analyze the words and actions of a new president, especially one like Trump.

To be honest, I recognize that I don't have a positive attitudinal response towards Trump. I see Trump as the rough business man who was the host of the Apprentice, not really the President of the United States. My responses for the On The Media posts reflect how I think there are some negative aspects that are coming from the current President and his fellow government members. In my post for the Smoke and Handcuffs post, I expressed a great deal of concern (and fear) with how Trump handles Fox News and the effects that it has on his presidency. I back my concerns with information as to how I reach those conclusions, but they are still information that is catered to my personal views and biases. I could have posted more on the fact that it is admirable that Trump is attempting to accomplish various things during his time as President, which is true. However, I decide to focus more on the negative aspects about Trump's actions.

I'm not necessarily saying that my attitudinal response about Trump is automatically a logical fallacy, but rather that it is my primary and first response. There are many people, myself included, who sometimes don't take the time to look past the automatic attitudinal response and take all primary impressions as absolute facts. This is the real fallacy. Finding credible sources and using that credible information to back up claims aroused from the automatic attitudinal response is what individuals need to strive for. In my posts during this semester, I have tried backing up my claims and assertions with information that is found from other sources.

Instead of focusing on the information that conforms with my attitudinal response, I think that I need to also find information that goes against that attitudinal response that produces information that favors Trump. If I research both sides of the information, then I can come up with a more accurate and concise opinion about a wide range of topics. This is something that I know I could do better at to improve the validity and accuracy of my automatic attitudinal responses.

OTM #2 (Smoke & Handcuffs)

"Rhetoric is more dominant than facts."

The quote written above from this weeks On The Media really struck home for me. I think this has been a perfect representation of what the Trump administration has been trying to accomplish. Trump seems to be focused on stating promises and information that doesn't correspond to the actual means that can be accomplished. Also, it amazes me that the current President of the United States turns to a single broadcasting channel for information about what is happening in the world.

While a few different topics were discussed on the talkshow, the information about Trump and his tweeting habits after watching Fox News really bothered me. First off, shouldn't someone like the President be given information from a more credible source than any of the news stations? Isn't there certain information resources that provide the President with only updated and accurate information? Obviously there isn't if Trump continues to get his information from Fox News.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind if Trump stated that he was watching Fox News as a pastime or because he enjoyed watching that particular station. My problem arises when Trump openly discusses events (especially ones that include false information) that transpire on Fox News during Presidential events. The allegation about the problems in Sweden is a perfect example of this. It's almost amusing to watch the President of the United States publicly announce false information for the world to hear.

Amusing, but also quite scary.

The scary part about this whole situation with the fake Sweden news story is that this just demonstrates how dependent Trump is to a single news station. Fox News could easily persuade the President about loads of information dealing with many aspects of our nation's society. The fact that Trump is dependent upon the information that it provides, Fox News could be considered the most powerful news station in the world. Fox news doesn't necessarily need to provide the facts, but rather the rhetoric needed to persuade the President to make changes in their favor. This is quite scary indeed.

I enjoyed reading up about how Fox News decided to handle the Sweden information. They had a news segment where they brought Nils Bildt ("Swedish Defense and National Security Advisor") on the air to discuss the "real" problems that Sweden is having. The best thing about this news segment is that Nils Bildt isn't even a real Swedish national security advisor. The Washington Post wrote about how Nils Bildt isn't even known in the national security world. It's mind boggling that a news station that provides this type of false information from false individuals is regarded as "real news" in the eyes of the President of the United States.