A thumbs-up and a thumbs-down on TV shows and on State of the Union night

I adore Kate Winslet and am so happy she learned a Delco accent when she did “Mare of Easttown,” but Kate’s latest show, “The Regime” on Max, is one of the worst and cloudiest satires I’ve ever seen on television.

Even the estimable Winslet cannot save it.

She tries. She works to make her character, the elected leader of a Middle European democracy that operates more like a dictatorship, droll, capricious, self-absorbed, and influenced by highest bidders.

The denseness and self-conscious silliness of the scripts defeat her.

“The Regime” is chocked with heavy-handed, self-conscious “jokes” that are either too arcane or too dull to register.

The only thing worth making fun of is the series itself. It was torture watching “The Regime’s” first hour.

I’m debating whether to return for more, to see if the first episode’s end leads to something better and more trenchant.

For perfect satire, audiences should look to Cord Jefferson’s “American Fiction,” a double delight by being a sendup of the publishing industry, especially in its approach to minority culture, and a strong eye-opening family drama with great performances by Jeffrey Wright, John Ortiz and Leslie Uggams.

A programming alternative to “The Regime” is Apple’s “Constellation,” which creates genuine interest and suspense and features a fine lead performance from Noomi Rapace.

Biden and Britt and the coverage

From a television point of view, leaving politics aside, President Joe Biden performed far better executing his State of the Union address than the U.S. senator from Alabama, Katie Britt, did in delivering the Republican party response.

Differences in preparation and presentation styles tell a lot of that story.

I watched both speeches on ABC where anchor David Muir repeatedly billed Biden’s address as “a critical moment in the 2024 campaign cycle” and “the most significant speech” of his long career.

Muir and a selection of ABC News colleagued hyped up the speech in ways more indicative of 21st century television news. They put a sense of excitement and the potential of presidential glory ahead of perspective.

Current anchors and reporters have a hard time divorcing their political enthusiasms and unhidden rooting from the objectivity that was the hallmark of news, even television news, until, I’d judge, the George W. Bush administration.

They were right that there was a lot at stake for Biden. Although commentators were more animated than dispassionately calm.

They pointed out that concerns about the president’s age and mental alacrity were an issue and that Biden might have something to prove to a doubting electorate. They also delineated some the subjects the president might address.

I’m old-fashioned in that I would rather hear a speech, then have the news panelists comment rather than have them try to predict and assess an address before it’s delivered.

I may be picking on ABC here. I can’t know, because I didn’t see its competitors, but by being aware of the tone of 21st century news presentation, I would bet it wasn’t much different.

Watching the super partisan MSNBC or Fox News Channel might have sent me into of paroxysms of disapproval.

I mumble “Slowly I Turn” anytime I see either of those stations on a screen. Any screen, even when it’s mine as I watch to keep up professionally, my feet off the floor lest my shoes get fouled from the excrement issuing forth from the screen.

So much for the news team warmup, the journalistic equivalent of the runway segments of an award show.

Once he finally made it to the podium, Biden was a TV star. His experience as a speaker, his knowledge of the camera, and his willingness to taunt immediate hecklers and opposing Congress members gave his presentation a tone of importance and excitement.

Again, not taking a political stance — Full disclosure: I have not decided not to vote for either presidential candidate in 2024 because I find both of them, and the one known vice presidential running mate, too much of an anathema for me to want victory for any of them or think one is preferable to the other —  Biden only helped himself against doubters or anyone who thought the feisty, self-deprecating, political Joe Biden was lost amid a shuffling gait and forgetfulness about who his current European counterparts are.

Yes, there were lapses.

There were instances when Biden lost track of his thread and dithered, staring into space, before he recovered.

There were some mispronounced words and sloppy syntax, but in general, the president did himself a favor with his address.

I haven’t looked to see how the performance affected polling, but from a television point of view, Biden accomplished what he needed to do as a politician and as someone audiences were subjected to for an hour.

Britt’s response was a great disappointment, not only politically but as misjudgment of how to use television and what works and doesn’t on camera.

Whether or not you agree with or support Biden, he charged on with matters that were substantive and that would be on the minds of a thoughtful electorate.

Britt made several mistakes. From the point of view of scripting, in content and in writing the senator’s speech in its specifically stated duty. It was obviously crafted and rehearsed before Biden spoke.

Yes it would have to be. Unless Britt was Will Rogers and could improvise commentary on the spot.

You’d think some care would be taken to leave openings — doughnut holes — in such a script to give Britt, or anyone the party chose, to comment directly on something Biden said.

Her speech was billed as a response to the State of the Union. It read as a predictably rote proposal for GOP platform planks.

If that was party leaders’ intentions, they should have selected a speaker who could create a case more articulately and sincerely.

So, Britt’s alleged rebuttal didn’t even pretend to be a reaction to anything Biden actually said. It was a policy statement.

As such, it required a better actress.

I can’t help it. I had to laugh every time Britt counterfeited a fledgling soap opera performer putting a catch in his or her voice to indicate she was speaking sincerely or emotionally.

The overemphasized delivery, more suited to a charitable plea than a political idea, produced the opposite effect from that intended. Rather than make Britt’s point seem serious and worthy of consideration, it made it sound desperate and disingenuous.

It smacked more of amateurish persuasion than an honest statement of a problem worth addressing.

The choice to have Sen Britt in her home at a kitchen table was a good one that would have been better if whomever was at the camera had panned out an inch to include the table in the shot.

The ploy to have an average mother and housewife, who also happens to be a U.S. senator, appeal dramatically to other mothers and housewives was a canny one. All it lacks was the spokesperson who could pull it off.

While Biden may have reassured doubters by his performance, Britt diminished her status as a rising star.

Getting political for a second, my hope is she is being considered for Donald Trump’s running mate.

Subversion of journalism

One more point, which may be more important than how politicians used television at a crucial juncture, is how much more alleged journalists are lobbying to subvert television, at least television news.

Already, a corrupt, unreliable MSNBC and Fox News Channel program for adherents to one political ideology or another.

The gaps, pandering, prejudicial reporting, disguising of opinion for news, and outright acting as if the television outlets were partisan political parties is appalling enough.

Now there are calls, mostly for MSNBC, to limit certain information and keep it from being broadcast.

Of course, decisions about what story is covered on not have been made since Og carved the first tablet offering his cave community the news of the day.

Even on a 24-hour cycle, there is not enough time and real estate to include everything that might be of import, let alone of idle interest.

That type of selection is not what’s proposed.

There are people at MSNBC proposing that the station forgo airing any Donald Trump victory speeches or campaign appearances.

That would be fine if there was a similar proposal to limit Biden’s or Kamala Harris’.

Agreed, not everything Trump utters deserved airtime,

I don’t want to watch most of it. Or the same from Biden or Harris.

The point is some of those speeches are the crux of the news. By making their proposal, MSNBC is following social media outlets that want to police or censor news.

They want to air only ideas of which they approve. They want to escalate to a newer and more dangerous plateau of partisanism.

They want to blackout anything that might influence a viewer to think different from what they want that viewer to think, the journalistic crime taking any action at all about that.

Believe me, Trump is just as capable of pushing people away from him as he is bringing them to his camp.

Either way, it is clear and has always been clear that while editors and producers must gatekeep to manage news content, they must also be cognizant of what constitutes a basic news story, one that must be on any complete report on a given day.

A policy of wholesale refusal to cover a legitimate or significant event because of ideology takes us further down the rabbit hole to a place where television news is not worth the watching or worthy of it.

That people talk openly and proudly about wanting to take news in that direction is sad and against every warning Thomas Jefferson so wisely stated when he said an educated, informed public is critical to maintaining a democracy.

Censoring or withholding news by internal station policy is worth than partisanship or today’s preaching to the converted. It is nefarious and contrary to the principle Mr. Jefferson so thoughtfully asserted.