What did the Top News Stations Expect from Trump’s State of the Union Address?

What did the Top News Stations Expect from Trump’s State of the Union Address?

A survey of the previews of each prominent news station on the President's annual address


Last night, I was skimming through channels to see which ones are broadcasting the State of the Union address. I scrolled through a bunch of different news stations to find one that had the best quality. After watching a little bit of each news station, I figured that each of them is delivering their preview of this important speech differently.

The Fox News station is generally known by the public to have a conservative opinion when delivering the news.

They support this view by bringing people on the show that offer more of a right view of the country like Tomi Lahren, Anna Paulina, and many more. They are certainly not afraid of being viewed as a one-sided news station and turn away many viewers that have different views on politics.

Before the address, Fox News spoke about what could be expected and the questions that have arisen leading up to this. One of the journalists on Fox News, Morgan Ortagus, said, "I think what the President is going to do tonight is look for ways in which that he can make the case to the American people of the national security implications of not only the wall but border security [at] large."

Her colleague took a more opinionated view to say: "Will we see unity at the state of the union or will the Democrats troll the President and steal the show?"

On the other hand, CNN took the other side of this split republic, as it has always been more for the Democratic party than any other. One CNN journalist said, "What's worse? A new CNN poll showing that 43% of Americans say that the federal government's doing the worst job of governing in their lifetime. But there's always a chance that a strong speech can leave analysts saying that tonight was the night that Donald Trump finally became president."

Their views are definitely of the leftist side of the conversation, and they do take a very passionate take on being against the President and what he argues for.

Although there is not as much media bias surrounding the CBS news station, it was found that they significantly donated more to the Democratic party over the Republican party as donations. In light of the address, the news station took another route by featuring Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright and CBS News contributor and Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez to give the viewers a more informative outlook on what is expected from the President.

Sanchez begins by addressing that the President is "going to make the case why the country is still in jeopardy—I don't think he's going to say there's a national emergency today, but he's definitely going to allude to it, build that commonality. This is his platform to do it, and with a teleprompter—you know—in such a prestigious occasion, it definitely has a lot of positives for the President, if he remains scripted."

And then when asked to give his take on what the President will speak about, Seawright says, "I think the President is in a tight spot or a tight jam. Number one, this is the first time of him being in Nancy Pelosi's house. This is the first time he will address a split congress—Democratic house; Republican Senate and I think this is the first time he will be tested to put forth a legislative agenda that his base can get around and that he has to convince Democrats to get on board too.

But here's the thing about this proposed speech of unity. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say, 'Yeah, we're open to him. What does he have to say?' But I'm convinced I'm more about what you do versus what you say. We've heard the screams and calls of unity before from this President, and then he goes back into his Partisan corner even abandoning some from his own party. So I'll be curious to see what happens after tonight."

All of these different news stations provide different views on what could be said by the President during this important speech in front of millions of Americans. It's great that there is a platform where lines are crossed to get each and everyone's opinions out in the open. Mainly because without it, our opinions would never be officially supported, and through this, we are able to watch a channel that will make us feel comfortable and open to the news.

Popular Right Now

This Is How Your Same-Sex Marriage Affects Me As A Catholic Woman

I hear you over there, Bible Bob.

It won't.

Wait, what?

I promise you did read that right. Not what you were expecting me to say, right? Who another person decides to marry will never in any way affect my own marriage whatsoever. Unless they try to marry the person that I want to, then we might have a few problems.

As a kid, I was raised, baptized, and confirmed into an old school Irish Catholic church in the middle of a small, midwestern town.

Not exactly a place that most people would consider to be very liberal or open-minded. Despite this I was taught to love and accept others as a child, to not cast judgment because the only person fit to judge was God. I learned this from my Grandpa, a man whose love of others was only rivaled by his love of sweets and spoiling his grandkids.

While I learned this at an early age, not everyone else in my hometown — or even within my own church — seemed to get the memo. When same-sex marriage was finally legalized country-wide, I cried tears of joy for some of my closest friends who happen to be members of the LGBTQ community.

I was happy while others I knew were disgusted and even enraged.

"That's not what it says in the bible! Marriage is between a man and a woman!"

"God made Adam and Eve for a reason! Man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman!"

"Homosexuality is a sin! It's bad enough that they're all going to hell, now we're letting them marry?"

Alright, Bible Bob, we get it, you don't agree with same-sex relationships. Honestly, that's not the issue. One of our civil liberties as United States citizens is the freedom of religion. If you believe your religion doesn't support homosexuality that's OK.

What isn't OK is thinking that your religious beliefs should dictate others lives.

What isn't OK is using your religion or your beliefs to take away rights from those who chose to live their life differently than you.

Some members of my church are still convinced that their marriage now means less because people are free to marry whoever they want to. Honestly, I wish I was kidding. Tell me again, Brenda how exactly do Steve and Jason's marriage affect yours and Tom's?

It doesn't. Really, it doesn't affect you at all.

Unless Tom suddenly starts having an affair with Steve their marriage has zero effect on you. You never know Brenda, you and Jason might become best friends by the end of the divorce. (And in that case, Brenda and Tom both need to go to church considering the bible also teaches against adultery and divorce.)

I'll say it one more time for the people in the back: same-sex marriage does not affect you even if you or your religion does not support it. If you don't agree with same-sex marriage then do not marry someone of the same sex. Really, it's a simple concept.

It amazes me that I still actually have to discuss this with some people in 2017. And it amazes me that people use God as a reason to hinder the lives of others.

As a proud young Catholic woman, I wholeheartedly support the LGBTQ community with my entire being.

My God taught me to not hold hate so close to my heart. He told me not to judge and to accept others with open arms. My God taught me to love and I hope yours teaches you the same.

Disclaimer - This article in no way is meant to be an insult to the Bible or religion or the LGBTQ community.

Cover Image Credit: Sushiesque / Flickr

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

A Florida House Committee Is Undermining Your Vote On Amendment 4

Before felons can regain their right to vote, they must pay court fines, fees, and take care of any other "financial obligations." Essentially, this is a poll tax.


Amendment 4, also known as the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative, was added to the Constitution of Florida after being passed this last midterm election on November 6, 2018.

Amendment 4 restored the voting rights of Floridians with prior felony convictions after all terms of their sentence have been met, including parole and probation. This amendment only applies to felons who have not been convicted of murder or sexual offenses.

On January 8, 2019, an estimated 1.4 million ex-felons regained their right to vote. This is monumental. Prior to this amendment, Florida was one of four states that used felony disenfranchisement. Amendment 4 gives voice, and rightfully so, to felons who have served their time. Amendment 4 is also putting to rest, finally, years and years of disenfranchisement and suppression.

Now, only two months after its passage, the House Criminal Justice Committee is trying to water down this piece of legislation. This is a direct violation of the will of the 64% of Floridians who voted for the legislation as is. This amendment was not to be "clarified," as Governor DeSantis put it, but rather to be self-implementing.

However, the House Criminal Justice Committee proposed a bill that would tack on some extra qualifiers in order for felons to be enfranchised. The bill will require court fines, fees, and other "financial obligations" (in addition to fees administered in a judge's sentence) to be paid in full before a felon's voting rights are restored. This seems awfully similar to a poll tax to me. Obviously, this is going to affect people without a lot of resources rather than white-collar criminals who can afford a $500,000 bond.

This new qualifier will prevent felons from voting based on the money that can be coughed up as if they don't have to worry about their finances long after they leave prison.

Some may argue that these felons shouldn't have committed a crime in the first place. However, I would argue that holding a felon's vote hostage on the basis of money is unconstitutional.

Related Content

Facebook Comments