Commentary

Obama Gave A Good Speech, But State Of The Union Was Dull TV

Like him or not, the man gives a good speech.

On TV Tuesday night, President Obama’s last State of the Union speech sounded well-written. And the president delivered it in the usual confident way he has with a speech in which he comes across as relaxed and almost conversational.

He was reading off of a screen, of course -- probably two of them. But he’s so polished at this that he gave no sign that he was relying on TelePrompTers (if this is what they are still called).

The telecasts I grazed through during the speech -- which started at nearly 10 minutes after 9 p.m. Eastern and lasted about an hour -- all exhibited the usual proficiency. The image seen most often was the straight-ahead shot of the president at the podium, flanked by Vice President Joe Biden seated over his right shoulder and House Speaker Paul Ryan over his left.

advertisement

advertisement

In the knowledge that the cameras would be upon them for most of the speech, these two kept their composure and never seemed to doze off even once. The telecasts were broken up by reaction shots of various members of the audience -- including First Lady Michelle Obama and candidates for president such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (who dropped out of the Republican race last month).

Many of the people shown were not as well-known as these others, and on many of the networks, they often went unidentified on-screen, which was a shame because it would have been nice to be told who they were.

For the record, here in New York, the State of the Union could be seen on at least 19 stations and networks -- Time Warner New York 1 News, CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, CNN and CNN International, Bloomberg News, NBC Universo (Spanish), Fox Business Network, Fox News Channel, Al Jazeera America, BBC World News, Centric (African-American), Galavision (Spanish), and C-Span 1 and C-Span 2.

NBC’s business channel, CNBC, skipped the speech. Instead, it aired an episode of “Shark Tank.” Spanish-language Univision also took a pass on the president’s speech, opting instead for a telenovela, “Pasión y Poder” (translation: “Passion and Power”).

Traditionally, the best part of the annual State of the Union telecasts for me has always been the run-up to the speech in which the politicos arrive at the Capitol and file smiling into the House chamber where they then proceed to shake hands, and hug and kiss each other. Then there’s the procession of cabinet members, joint chiefs and Supreme Court justices.

Many people thrill to all this pomp and circumstance. Meanwhile, I’m sitting there thinking: What a bunch of phony pompous asses these people are! I realize that’s cynical, but it’s really part of the experience, isn’t it?

In years past, I have usually watched this part of the State of the Union evening on C-Span because they used to show it without audible commentary of any kind -- which made the viewer a kind of fly on the wall just watching everything. This year, there was commentary on C-Span, and another tradition bit the dust.

As for the actual speech, it is appropriate here in this TV blog to try and assess its value as a TV show. And in that regard, it should surprise no one that it would be found lacking. As a TV show, this hour-long speech airing in prime time uninterrupted by commercials or breaks of any kind runs counter to every media trend folks in the media biz talk about constantly.

It’s too long, the visuals are dull and I imagine that a great many of the people watching it are not buying it. Speaking for myself, despite the president’s sprightly delivery, I only stayed with this speech until the very end out of a sense of professional obligation because I had committed myself to making it the subject of Wednesday morning’s TV blog. If I had not, you can bet your bottom dollar I would have bailed after about 15 minutes.

What can I say? I’m no different than anybody else. Who can really sit there for an hour or more listening to a politician make a speech? President Obama did a great job. But it was boring television anyway.

4 comments about "Obama Gave A Good Speech, But State Of The Union Was Dull TV".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Robert McEvily from MediaPost, January 13, 2016 at 2:14 p.m.

    By this logic, Trump is a lock!

  2. Chuck Lantz from 2007ac.com, 2017ac.com network, January 13, 2016 at 4:13 p.m.

    "Dull TV"?  ... "Were you not entertained?"  ... "Do you want to know more?" ... 

    Geezus H. Christmas!  Was this blog a joke?  I certainly hope so, since if it's not, we are in a whole lot more trouble as a nation than even I thought, and I'm one of the most cynical people you'll ever encounter.  

    For the woefully uninformed, which, judging from the blog, most definitely includes Mr. Buckman, the State of the Union address has always been more about nuance and reception than about the actual content and presentation. This is obviously especially true now that we have multiple camera shots of those in attendance, so that more reactions can be seen. 

    And make no mistake; ... those reactions are studied very carefully, since they represent a sort of road map of what lies ahead in the skirmishes and major battles any President faces in the coming year. The responses by the opposing political party are planned as carefully as the speech itself. The clapping, standing, and sitting quietly are all orchestrated and only very rarely ad-libbed, especially in these times of intense rancor between political parties. And every one of those responses are important clues to the actual "State of the Union."

    Not having the knowledge to understand both the players and the plays in this State of the Union game will certainly lead to the perception that it constitutes "dull TV", and I'm honestly saddened that the author apparently lacks that knowledge, since the outcome of all that SotU nuance and innuendo will have a direct effect on all of us.  

    To put it another way; the State of the Union speech, and the reactions, are as much about what sort of state the union will be in in the future as it is about how it's doing so far.  And that's very, very far from "dull" 

  3. Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, January 14, 2016 at 2:17 a.m.

    Dear Adam,
    With all due respect, your SOTU Blog is abominable.
    And your conclusions are just stupid!  I know you know better.
    What the hell did you expect from the State of the Union?
    "America's Got Talent?"  It's once-a-year news and information!
    I think you have lost track of TV's obligation
    to serve the American Public's "interest, convenience and necessity."
    It's absurd expectations like yours that have made TV
    Newton Minnow's "Vaste Wasteland."  More MTV, please!
    And for heaven's sake, don't write that you are "no different than anybody else."
    Save your thoughtless critiques for "TV That Matters" ... like "Big Brother!" 
    In sum, the only people I know who found SOTU dull
    are ignorant, indifferent, solipsistic morons.  That's not you.  Just stop!
    In disgust,
    NPS

  4. Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC replied, January 16, 2016 at 4:14 p.m.

    Chuck,

    Overdue compliments for a fine critique, which I had not read when I wrote mine.  
    Alas, I wish I had written yours, but we do what we can do.

    Your comments were spot on: thoughtful, contextual, constructive and absolutely correct.

    Unlike those in the GOP or the Befuddled Media (the BM's of the Free Press) who that would betray America for a few pieces of Trump or Goldman Sachs silver or a few mis-measured, hyped rating points, you were faithful to the facts of the past , the needs of the present and our best hopes for the future.  

    Your writing utilizes expression beyond the ever so destructive language, emotions and actions of those dim-witted, narrow-minded GOP candidates who invoke to the wall and the military as the solutions to every challenge facing America.  What fools!  What monsters!  How dangerous!

    Alas, when I wrote I was disgusted ... not angry ... disgusted.  Perhaps it was a mistake to let emotion hold my pen. That's not unlike the people I criticize.

    Then, there is commentary like yours that has the right proportions of thought and feeling.

    Well done!

    Nick

Next story loading loading..