Does Television Really Need to Cover Two Responses To the State Of The Union?

Traditionally, the party not holding the presidency selects a rising star to respond to the State Of The Union. As an answer to something that the writers haven’t read invariably strikes a false note and often ends up being considered a failure—most notably when Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s response to Barack Obama’s first State Of The Union was compared, unfavorably, to Kenneth the Page from 30 Rock.

However, it is free television time for the party out of power, which always seeks out rising stars to deliver it. This year, the Republican Party has selected Marco Rubio, the Florida senator and possible 2016 presidential contender, to respond on its behalf. So he’ll get all the remaining media attention, right?

Well, maybe not. He’s not delivering the only response.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul will also be in the picture, delivering the Tea Party response to the State Of The Union. Paul’s speech will be the third such Tea Party response, following Michele Bachmann in 2011 and Herman Cain in 2012. While both Bachmann and Cain could be considered political novelty acts, Paul, like Rubio, is already considered a contender for 2016 and a political heavyweight.  Both responses will require real and significant coverage but, considering Rubio’s Tea Party roots, it’s unlikely that they will vary much in content.

The media need to start exercising better control over State Of The Union responses and how much attention will be paid. The presidential address  is a constitutionally mandated message and the traditional response is more of a courtesy by the broadcast networks than a duty. After all, in theory, the State Of The Union is no more political than the inauguration, they are both required by the Constitution.

The problem is that as networks give multiple responses extra billing, it increases the incentives for people to chime with more responses. After all, if Tea Party Republicans can get their response, why not moderate Republicans or socially conservative Republicans and on and on? And this isn’t a partisan issue, one shudders to think at the number of responses that various elected officials from the Democratic Party in the 1980s would want to give.

Broadcast networks and other news outlets should do their best to restrain this trend. It doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t cover non-official responses, they just shouldn’t give them free air time. It’s not as if most political speeches get broadcast live. Dissenters from their party’s official response will still have plenty of opportunities to get their views out, just not in full on live television.

Share this article