"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.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI always enjoy reading your posts! I agree that it's incredible that our President is openly speaking about information that he believes to be true, but very well may not be the whole truth. I would love to know about that secret source of information that he does/should have access to that you mentioned! That would clear up a lot of conflict and confusion.
I've found that no matter where the source comes from, even if they're typically credible, it's very difficult to share complete, unbiased information. Even from a person that may have been standing there witnesses whatever is being reported. Depending on what side of the street they may have been standing on, the story could take a on very different light.
I read two books about the same historical event. Both seem to be written by credible sources. They are: An Ordinary Man by Paul Rusesebagina, and Hotel Rwanda written by Kerry Zukus. They both cover the genocide in Rwanda during 1994, but An Ordinary Man makes Rusesbagina out to be the savior of many lives, and Hotel Rwanda, written by the people that Rusesbagina supposedly saved, states he did the complete opposite.
Since I had that experience, I realized it's truly difficult to know what really happened.
Lindsay Bayles Allred