Granted, I won’t watch in either case. But I’m a fan of the ‘enhanced’ version of the State of the Union address (starting in a little over two hours as I type this) that the Obama Administration has streamed live since 2011
2010. The enhancements mean that graphics and other blandishments are added to the video presentation at relevant parts of the speech.
Now, I suppose some networks would object to broadcasting the graphics generated by the White House, but I have a hard time seeing how including the graphics would present a bias any more than presenting the President’s address does. We’ll see if any of those offering ‘responses’ to the address will adopt similar techniques.
Still, the artifact of a State of the Union address is not so much a Constitutional obligation as a sustained political theatrical presentation. Prior to President Wilson, these addresses were not delivered live in Congressional chambers, but sent by hand. Would it be so wrong to develop a really involved slide deck with audio to send to every member of Congress and the American public? I don’t think so. You might actually get more people reading or hearing the presentation. Especially if there won’t be all the blessed commentary surrounding this event. But networks have to justify paying the talking heads, so I’m not optimistic.