President Obama’s State of the Union Address was documented as the least-watched address since the Clinton Administration with 33.5 million TV viewers. According to The Washington Post, the President “averaged 43 million viewers in 2011 and 48 million in 2010. An impressive 52 million caught Obama’s first such speech, which was technically an address to a joint session of Congress.” The low average of viewers on Tuesday night could be blamed on several factors such as a careless and/or jaded constituency, but most likely the cause is that in an age of instantaneous technology there is no urgency to sit and watch a speech at a specified time on a specified channel knowing that coverage and commentary will be available through countless outlets online.
While the content of the actual speech is available, I found that commentary regarding everything but the speech was much more prominently promoted. The day after the President’s speech, my Google RSS News feed featured more stories pertaining to Speaker Boehner and Vice President Biden’s facial expressions and the infamous water break of Marco Rubio, rather than the implications of the content of the President’s speech.
The following video was the
first story to appear on the news feed:
The focus here was not even on what the President said, but on the fact the Speaker John Boehner did not stand in support of the remarks.
An article from the Courier-Journal was next in emphasizing that “the brief sip of water from Senator Marco Rubio may have gotten more immediate attention than any policy ideas” during the Republican rebuttal. As the water break gained more notice, Rubio sent a photo of the bottle from his Twitter account in an effort to poke fun at this awkward moment. Since then, Rubio has become the focus of many online jokes – even making it onto a few Memes. (Ken Thomas, Associated Press)
What does all of this say
about the state of the news industry in the U.S.? Why is it that my RSS news feed
focused on face gestures, who stood and when, and the sip of water? I believe it speaks to the power of the
visual component to the news and how we as viewers are affected by visually
seeing an event, rather than simply hearing it.
The fact is that these articles
are more prominent and promoted on my news feed may very well have everything to do with America's“soft news” epidemic. For
one, entertaining news is easier to quickly publish and cheaper for the news to produce.
Secondly, it is what tends to be in demand, especially among my generation of 20 somethings. Essentially, newsmakers know what that we
would rather hear about the awkward sip of water by Senator Rubio and how
stylish First Lady Michelle Obama was, more so than the spiraling economy. They
are just giving viewers what we demand in terms of news and conforming to the commercial
pressures in U.S. news.
Are the newsmakers to blame for this great promotion of soft news? The media gives viewers what is found to be most popular, therefore the public is just as responsible in this struggle between supply and demand. Perhaps we desire this soft news because it’s easier to “digest” in our fast paced daily lives; maybe we are just shaped that way culturally. Whatever the reason, articles about facial gestures, water bottles, and attire will surely continue to prevail in response to major speeches such as the State of the Union for years to come.
Sources:
Photos: Google Images
Video: Huffington Post Politics YouTube Channel
Articles:
Are the newsmakers to blame for this great promotion of soft news? The media gives viewers what is found to be most popular, therefore the public is just as responsible in this struggle between supply and demand. Perhaps we desire this soft news because it’s easier to “digest” in our fast paced daily lives; maybe we are just shaped that way culturally. Whatever the reason, articles about facial gestures, water bottles, and attire will surely continue to prevail in response to major speeches such as the State of the Union for years to come.
Sources:
Photos: Google Images
Video: Huffington Post Politics YouTube Channel
Articles:
De Moraes, Lisa. "TV Column: 33.5 million viewers tune in to Obama’s State of the Union address." Wall Street Journal, sec. Television, Feb. 13, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/tv-column-38million-viewers-tune-in-to-obamas-state-of-the-union-address/2013/02/13/c7d30774-762f-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html.
Thomas, Ken. "Marco Rubio water break during GOP response goes viral." Courier-Journal.com, sec. News, Feb. 13, 2013. http://www.courier-journal.com/viewart/20130213/NEWS03/302130064/Marco-Rubio-water-break-during-GOP-response-goes-viral.
Some interesting thoughts here, Aubrey.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with the notion that news has declined in quality in recent times. Perhaps, like you say, it's because it is easier for us to digest in our busy lives; certainly, putting the SOTU address on a tuesday night isn't going to maximize viewers. I wonder though if anything can be said suggesting that soft news is so appealing because the public simply aren't interested in politics like they used to be. The visual media came to fruition at a time when the USA was embroiled in a global conflict which (supposedly) threatened Americans' freedom at home. Add that to how the government has grown in size and separate branches, and maybe the people just aren't interested in the minute details, which they ultimately perceive to have little effect on their lives.
This was a blog I enjoyed reading thoroughly.
The idea (or even the fact) that Americans put an article on The First Lady's dress higher on their "to read" list than the actual content of the State of the Union is just sad. Quality of news is in a downward spiral with no end in sight. I like the video and pictures you included in your blog, it made the flow of your article very interesting and easy to read. One thing I think you could add is more on the actual politics side. Maybe, how all this focus on Boehner's facial expressions and refusing to stand is affecting politics? Overall excellent job! I look forward to the next blog.
ReplyDeleteAubrey: You made very good use of links here and I think you have some solid commentary on the nature of the soft news-oriented stories that developed in the wake of the SOTU address. However, you may need to reconsider your assessment of whether these stories were more prominent than hard news content about the speech in the media as a whole. Part of this depends on what site/source that you went to. Are you saying these stories were the first to come up when you went to yahoo.com? Or do you have some sort of RSS news feed through them? Is Yahoo primarily a news site? They do have a Yahoo News section, and if you went there, were these soft news stories the primary ones to be featured, or was there more substantive coverage there? There is so much content out there that we consider under the umbrella of “the media” today and so I just think you want to be fair and accurate in the argument that you are making. So for instance, the WSJ blog you link to describes itself thus: “Speakeasy is an online magazine covering media, entertainment, celebrity and the arts.” What kind of coverage of the SOTU would you expect to find here? You will want to revise your original contribution on this topic to make your argument a bit stronger. Nice work embedding video and images in your post.
ReplyDelete