Why does the United States even have a State of the Union Address anymore? Sure, it was first established for the right reasons; it was a way for the President to communicate to Congress the current “state of the Union,” but isn’t that what Twitter, Facebook, Vine, etc. are for? Philip Bump, a New York news reporter believes that the State of the Union Address is not nearly what it used to be, and is passionately eager to explain why it still exists despite its lack of effectiveness in his article titled “Analysis: Do we even need a State of the Union address anymore?” published in the Washington Post on January 19, 2015.

There is history to this Address. It is stated in the Constitution in Article II, Section III, Clause 1 that it is required of the President that he ". . . shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." This being, it is obvious we cannot legally terminate the existence of this address. The State of the Union Address was also originally in the form of a letter, but due to the invention of the television, it has clearly shifted to a more technological format to reach more people over a widespread area. Not only has the Address’s format changed drastically since its beginning in the 1700s, but Bump claims that its utility has decreased significantly since then “with Twitter and such.” He then validates that claim with the proof that President Obama has recently used social media such as Facebook and Vine to announce major proposals which reach a very broad audience all over the world. With this amount of ease, why would people want to watch the address on T.V. when they can be updated almost instantly on every latest political proposal? Bump continues to use an appeal to authority method while causing his readers to envision a time where the address was considered necessary by two of our country’s most respected Presidents, Roosevelt and Wilson. This positive vision is then immediately overtaken in the next paragraph by the statement that President Obama is clearly aware that the State of the Union Address does no good for him, making the previous Presidents’ opinions no longer valid in the readers’ minds. Bump then attempts to support this claim by stating that the viewership count and poll numbers in the past 20 years are significantly lower than Presidents’ such as Bill Clinton, but there was no in-depth proof of the claim’s statistics. These numbers are, also, “according to Neilson,” but honestly, who is Neilson? A further explanation of this person would have been very helpful in supporting this controversial account. In addition, Bump states that President Obama’s popularity has lowered following his address. Again, there is no proof to validate why it has dropped. This drop may be due to a multitude of factors such as lack of citizens’ individual interest or even pure ignorance to political issues, but there is no clear, argumentative indication of why his popularity has dropped. It is obvious that the President is aware of his unpopularity; however, it is stated that he is still using the famed status of social media to his advantage. In addition to President Obama taking his broadcasting of ideas to the internet, announcing proposals such as free community-college tuition on Vine and his immigration plan on Facebook, he has been recently taking questions from many famed “YouTube” stars following his recent State of the Union Address this past January in hope to gain the admiration of a younger, broader audience. This is clear for anyone with access to the internet to see. According to Ross Douthat of the New York Times, President Obama’s poll numbers have gone up at least to the mid-40s since his latest Address. It sounds like President Obama knows how to operate throughout this unpopularity setback quite well.

 Bump continues to state that another potential reason why there is a decline in the recognition of the State of the Union’s prestigious reputation is due to the lack of constituency understanding or care for the role of the Presidency. He then supports this claim by stating data measured by Gallup. This data represents in minor details that the United States no longer trusts its well-being in the hands of its own government, and it is certainly not reliant on the Presidency to take the correct action when necessary. Once again, the “proof” for this claim is not strongly useful. The readers assume that Bump is a reliable resource for this information due to his article’s publication, but if one is consciously aware, it is clear that the majority of his claims are subjective and can be refuted by an opposing opinion. Although his claims are not well supported, the essence of Bump’s article holds true to many beliefs: we’re just not impressed anymore by the Presidency. Bump put this statement very well, and many would withhold from attempting to argue it.

So why do we continue to have the State of the Union Address if we feel that the information is not relevant to our lives and that it is not only going to circulate throughout Congress, but throughout the world before it is even presented? Simply put, Bump states that the State of the Union Address is a fancy tradition that mirrors the important status of the United States Presidency no matter how many of the constituents watch it. It will remain in existence as long as there are announcements over social media, nosy politicians, and ignorant citizens to not watch it when it is a click of button away; plus, it gives the President the spotlight to discuss political topics that he sees fit for the occasion. But why is Bump even qualified to have an opinion such as this? Why should we care what he thinks about the State of the Union Address? He is a New York City reporter, but none the less, he has an article published in the eighth-largest newspaper as of 2012, and the second-largest newspaper website as of 2011 which specifically focuses on topics of politics. This is the Washington Post, as sourced by Nieman Journalism Lab. Despite Bump’s personal opinion, it is up to the reader to decide whether the State of the Union Address is necessary anymore. Perhaps some readers were even presented with a new strategy to collect important information from the President through social media, and this article did not serve its intended purpose. To me, it seems that Bump is clearly fanatical about this topic and was attempting to sway his readers towards his position of the Address’s lack of efficiency. Despite Bump’s passion, this article was not strongly supported for many reasons such as lack of proof to claims and lack of opinions from a broader audience. Personally, I believe that the State of the Union Address is necessary not only to inform the country of its current state, but to be a factor that adds up to support the respected role of the Presidency that so many lack understanding of. It will be interesting to continually observe the United States’ perspective towards the State of the Union Address within the next few Presidential elections.