My Quote To CNN About Tweeting During Speeches From The House Or Senate Floor
CNN's Dan Merica called me Tuesday morning to ask for my thoughts. Here's some of what I told him about Senators or Congressman tweeting during the State of the Union address and other speeches:
Just because something is unobtrusive, doesn't mean it should be allowed, says Amy Alkon, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of "I See Rude People.""It is really rude," Alkon said emphatically. "Even if someone is outright boring, if your job is to pay attention to them, it is rude to be engaged in your phone or your other device."
Alkon said she understands that everyone else is doing it, but that doesn't make it acceptable.
"If people would just put themselves in the shoes of the people up there," Alkon concluded. "Imagine giving a speech and you look at them and see that not a person there is engaged in what you are saying. That is not an easy thing."
Imagine the rage of O'Reilly and the Faux crew if that were Bush giving the speech...
DrCos at February 13, 2013 3:30 AM
Imagine the rage of O'Reilly and the Faux crew if that were Bush giving the speech...
Would they? or is that your bias speaking? what I do know is that had Nancy or Harry had tweeted during 43's SOTU, the MFM would have lauded them as "bold" and "courageous".
Remember, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Unless a Democrat is in power, in which case it's treasonous.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 13, 2013 6:33 AM
Remember, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Unless a Democrat is in power, in which case it's treasonous.
Remember, there's a time and place for dissent.
If you are a sitting House or Senate member, all you have to do is wiggle a finger in a "come here, lackey!" kind of way to a member of the media and they will print or broadcast what you tell them.
Amy Alkon at February 13, 2013 6:48 AM
The SOTU has turned into a joke, with the constant clapping interruptions and the references to heroic guests that have nothing to do with the SOTU. It's all a sideshow, so seeing them tweet away doesn't really bother me.
Eric at February 13, 2013 7:31 AM
I'm with Eric.
It's theater, and it's effectively compulsory theater (in that Congress hasn't yet had the balls to collectively decide to demand he send a letter or just not show up to listen).
It is not actually a representative's "job" to pay attention to this speech, or even be present.
It's the President's duty to "from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union" - which is not a requirement for a yearly grandstanding speech.
And thus it's arguably the representatives' job to absorb the information - but that's not the same as a job of lending the President gravitas or self-importance during his speech by pretending it's interesting.
(I'd buy a polite duty to not heckle or interrupt, though.)
This is not a friendly meeting, or something people signed up for out of interest; it's politics, and cutthroat.
Nor is it that it's distracting to others who are Deeply Interested, which would be rude - between the interruptions and the sideshows, there's nothing to distract from.
I say tweeting during it is preferable to pretending it has any meaning or gravitas - in fact, I wish more of them would just stay home and stop pretending it's anything but useless Presidential grandstanding.
End the facade. Have the President send a letter. Or just read the transcript. That's all that's required.
Sigivald at February 13, 2013 1:11 PM
End the facade. Have the President send a letter.
He can't even submit a budget on time, a deadline that is a matter of law, what makes you think he'll get around to writing a letter?
I R A Darth Aggie at February 13, 2013 1:47 PM
They can't even bother to read the laws they pass. What makes you think they'll read a letter?
Conan the Grammarian at February 13, 2013 2:14 PM
Remember, dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Unless a Democrat is in power, in which case it's treasonous.
Not according to O'Reilly. Back when Bush II took us into Iraq, his on-air comments were "...now that we're at war, it is unpatriotic to criticize a sitting president."
Now that your party isn't in the Executive office, all bets are off.
And it's not bias, it's called observation. I'm not the one with the two sets of rules.
Disrespect is disrespect. Democrat, Republican, black, white, whatever.
DrCos at February 14, 2013 3:43 AM
> "...now that we're at war, it is unpatriotic
> to criticize a sitting president."
Now is that a direct quote, or did you just dress it up like one.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 14, 2013 5:17 AM
If he ever gets serious, I will listen. He didn't say anything about the real number of Americans who want to work but can not, what his health care reform is doing to healthcare, the real rate of inflation when you include things that people actually buy - food and energy, for example, or what he intends to say to the parents of those who will die in Afghanistan between when we said we'd leave and when we actually do. He could mention food stamps, what the TSA is doing to our civil liberties, and the massive growth in government - the actual state of the union. How inconvenient for him, so he did not. Benghazi? Evidently that never happened.
This was a political circus conducted by a clown.
MarkD at February 14, 2013 6:31 AM
It truly is rude to not pay attention when it's your job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 14, 2013 9:46 AM
Crid, that would be a direct quote. He was ranting about the people protesting the (2nd) invasion of Iraq.
His indignation at the time surprised me, but the disrespect that they show and allow for a president they dislike surprises me more, coming from a "news organization"
I wish it were bias, but it's not. Respect and disrespect should not follow party lines. On any "news" network (not solely Fox).
DrCos at February 15, 2013 5:35 AM
Leave a comment