If you are a political junkie, you are more likely to pay attention to the content of the speech from the President and Marco Rubio than maybe what Mrs. Obama was wearing or John Boehner's facial expression. But, what about the rest of America? I turned on my TV, logged onto twitter, Facebook, and different blogs expecting to get an in-depth analysis of the President’s speech. Much to my dismay, I read headlines like “Rubio and the Watergate Scandal” or “Tweets from the floor.” It seems like America is not interested in the actual content of the speech but what happens literally in front of him or behind him. During the state of the union address, John Boehner was trending on twitter. This was not because of his political ideology, but simply because of his facial expression, or lack of enthusiasm. The main focus during the speech seemed to be when John Boehner stood up, rolled his eyes or genuinely seemed uninterested.
After the President’s speech, Marco Rubio delivered the Republican’s response. Was anyone even listening to what he was saying? As soon as he paused to take a sip of water, the Internet exploded.
Is politics so boring that when a man pauses to take a sip of water it makes
headline news? I am flabbergasted by the amount of media coverage this got.
Politico, Huffington Post, ABC news among others all featured stories about
“Marco Rubio’s drinking problem.” For everyday Americans who are watching the
news or reading about it on blogs or Twitter, it takes away from the importance
of these speeches. With the focus being shifted from what both parties are
saying, people lose
track of what is really important. Now, I'm not saying that the media isn't covering these stories in hard news content for people like you and me. But, it seems that people are more interested in the soft news. The State of the Union
address is supposed to be an effective way for the President to relay his
message to not only Congress but also the American People. If people are worried about John
Boehner’s facial expression or Marco Rubio taking a sip of water, the President "going public" seems to be ineffective. People are losing track of what is really
important because they are more focused on unimportant things.
In
today’s society, it seems that the President is not getting the attention he used
to get. Logging onto Yahoo, and tuning into CNN the attention shifted from the
President’s speech, to the First Lady’s choice of dress. The first lady has become
such a style icon that it takes away from the President. People seem to forget
that the Michelle Obama is a Harvard Law School graduate, not a celebrity.
Granted, the First Lady should be an important figure for the American people
but, she should not have celebrity-like status.
It seems to me that since people are
already uninterested in politics so the News Media tries to find ways to keep
viewers engaged. Networks are already hesitant to give the president airtime
because they lose money. If they do not keep viewers engaged, they will lose
even more money in the hours after. Pointing to flaws, silly things, or fashion
makes viewers more likely to continue to watch. People are more likely to be
able to relate, or know what news anchors are talking about, when the news media analyze the First Lady’s dress color. All in all, the new media’s coverage of
the state of the union address has been very disappointing because they are not
giving American’s what they need; instead they are contributing to the
declining era of hard news.
With the decline of hard news, don't be surprised if we start seeing State of the Union Addresses like this one!
I agree with your argument that the media should have acknowledged the substantive information the president provided to the public (or lack thereof in some cases). It is disappointing that the media has primarily drifted from the political content of the speech and resulted to Rubio taking a sip of water for example. The media seems to just discuss and highlight things that would attract more viewers or get better ratings rather than cover the actual speech itself. I thought you did a good job of laying out this argument. Even though millions of people watched the SOTU, it does seem that the one moment people are going to remember is not even part of the president’s speech—because the media could not stop mentioning it. As far as constructive criticism, I think it would have been nice to have a link when you said that you were reading headlines that said “Rubio and the Watergate Scandal”. Similarly, when you say, John Boehner “rolled his eyes or genuinely seemed uninterested”; I think it would be very effective to insert a video clip showing his actual expressions. And then finally, I noticed that some of the words were cut off behind the picture of President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner. Otherwise, I enjoyed reading your post!
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with you more! Its really disappointing,and sad, that the news media is slowing straying away from what's important. Commentary following the SOTU should be about the president's remarks throughout the evening and what direction our country is headed in. I could care less about Rubio's water moment or Boehner's facial expressions.I agree with Kevin's thought about there is always that one moment people are going to remember,and its not even part of the actual speech. But in today's society its all about ratings,so what can you do. I enjoyed reading your post. You brought up a lot of good points! Can't wait to read the next one!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteZee: I think you have made a very solid argument here about how the media give out-sized attention to fairly trivial but entertaining aspects of an annual event in American politics like the SOTU address. At the same time, you might be more nuanced in how you are making this claim. Though, as you point out, there were many stories that focused on facial expressions or the first lady’s dress or Rubio’s water sip, there was also a great deal of news coverage that DID focus on the substance of the speech. This is true even of the outlets you look at: ABC News and Huffington Post elsewhere covered the speech’s substance, and I assume Yahoo News probably had something about it, though probably not in the style section you link to here. So given that fact, that the coverage is out there, what do you want to argue about this more trivial content – that it shouldn’t be covered at all by anyone? That people are less likely to access it than hard news about the speech? That depending on where people go for information, they might be more or less likely to see this kind of content? You will want to revise your argument somehow to make it more accurate in acknowledging that there is hard news content on the speech out there. Just a few other things: in your first sentence, when you say “more likely to pay attention” to the Obama and Rubio speeches, it’s unclear what you are comparing the attention paid to – more likely to pay attention to those speeches than what? Also, is it possible for you to embed the links that you put at the end into the text of your post when you talk about those stories?
ReplyDeleteAnd good use of pictures and videos here!
ReplyDelete