Right now I am looking at the coverage leading up to tonight’s US President’s State of the Union address. As is typical, pundits on both sides are arguing the merits of his proposals that haven’t been proposed yet. My understanding is that the White House routinely announces the proposed contents of a speech, and even specific numbers (of dollars, troops, gallons, etc.) sometimes days ahead of the speech. I remember times when Presidents have distributed drafts and outlines before the speech is given. My question is why? I only see downsides:
The proposals have been thrashed about before the President even has a chance to weigh in.
The proposals opponents have a chance to get their rebuttals ready, and to mobalize the opposition.
Less people will watch the speech if they already know the contents.
In the case of the State of The Union (and most speeches anymore), the representative of the other party has broadcast time after the speech. I’m sure they are carefully vetting the proposals to attack the opposition.
To be clear, the pre-announcement isn’t always leaks - the White House itself releases the info.
And it isn’t partisan - I remember Presidents of both parties doing this.
What’s the upside. Isn’t it better to surprise people with the proposals? What am I missing?
Thanks John T, but that just adds to the mystery. First, there is a 24 hour news cycle now. Most people no longer get their news from newspapers. Second, why would the President want the media to filter something he is going to say on live TV. Third, Sometimes, like the Oil proposals that are supposed to be in tonights speech, are sent out days in advance, sometimes 4 or 5.
There might be a “24 hour news cycle” (actually, there was always a “24 hour news cycle” ), but print newspapers have deadlines, and since many of the worlds movers 'n shakers still read papers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, London Times, and etc, the speeches must be released in time to make their deadlines.
Some of the stuff that is released days early is done as a “feeler”, seeing how the country would react if the President decided to raise taxes by 99%. Noting the outrage, the offending passage is changed so that he only proposes a 75% tax hike.
What is there in any State of the Union that is supposed to be a surprise? Why should any President want to surprise the country with a new program that will be swamped in the mention of 100 other programs?
The modern purpose of the SofU is sheer promotion. It’s a chance to focus the attention of the country on the President. It almost always yields a small bump in the polls. It is not in any way designed to say anything. (Can you remember one single thing that was said in any SotU?)
The point about promotion is that you tell people it’s coming to start everyone talking. Then you have have all your people ready to talk about the wonderfulness of it immediately afterward so that it can get proper adulation, rather than having policy wonks publicly dither about some program that’s gotten announced. You don’t under any circumstances want people to be so surprised that they might say something unscripted.
The upcoming 2008 political conventions will be the same thing over a longer period of time. Nothing unscripted will happen there either. The thought is anathema to the professionals.
Even the electronic media need some time to read over the text and analyze what is being said. In addition, the president probably includes details of his proposals in the material to the press that are either skipped over or aren’t clear in the text. He’s not going to spend ten minutes explaining the minutia of what he wants done and lose the audience.
Another point is that the White House wants to get the message out to political allies so that they can have their supportive press releases and sound bites ready to go – “As the President stated so effectively, we must do more to protect kittens and rainbows in this session of Congress.”
No problem. Let the press hear/read it live, as he says it, and then they can analyze it, and we’ll hear their analysis 6 or 12 or 18 hours later. Why do we need to hear their analysis immediately after he’s done speaking?
Sure, I understand that each press member/organization wants to rush to be the first one, and so they very much appreciate the advance copies, but why does the White House cooperate with them? Why not let it be a surprise to everyone fairly?
(Note: I agree with JohnT’s idea about “feelers”. If the President is going to send out some idea which is potentially controversial, that’s a good example of why they might want to get some advance reaction. But that applies to very little, if anything, of the entire speech.)
As I read it, the question is more, why are the proposals leaked out over the few days leading up to the speech, rather than why are the press told what’s going to be in the speech before he delivers it.
Leaking out bits of the SOTU for a few days prior to the delivery of the speech is an effort to manage what news is on the front page. Since it’s like juicy gossip, newspapers are sure to run something about health insurance programs on Thursday… then something about Iraq comes out on Friday… then something on gas prices on Monday, and so on. This turns the SOTU into a multi-day media event, not just a speech on one night.
Also, since the address usually touches on so many topics, there’s no way the press can give full coverage to all proposals in one day. If it were all held back, some parts of the speech would be drowned out by others. By leaking proposals out in the days leading to the speech, each item the White House wants to get covered by the press, does get covered by the press.
), but print newspapers have deadlines, and since many of the worlds movers 'n shakers still read papers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, London Times, and etc, the speeches must be released in time to make their deadlines.