Parity Run Amok: What Exactly is CNN Revealing About Joe Biden?

-

biden twn.jpg
CNN aired a one-hour special called Sarah Palin Revealed last night. I don’t love the use of the word “revealed.” It’s clearly sensational. But given how much shocking information about the GOP vice presidential nominee has come out this week, and how many new questions have been raised, it’s really not worth complaining about.
What is worth complaining about — or maybe laughing about — is that this program was immediately followed by an hour of Joe Biden Revealed. Really? I mean, I’m sure Americans have plenty to learn about the senator from Delaware. But revealed? The man’s been in the spotlight for well over 35 years and has been heavily scrutinized during two presidential runs. I don’t think CNN uncovered a single new facet or perspective of Joe Biden’s life.
I doubt the Obama-Biden campaign cares in the slightest, but it really does make CNN look silly.
— Scott Paul

Comments

14 comments on “Parity Run Amok: What Exactly is CNN Revealing About Joe Biden?

  1. Clement_W says:

    “But given how much shocking information about the GOP vice presidential nominee has come out this week, and how many new questions have been raised, it’s really not worth complaining about.”
    Mr Paul,
    Please, Please, admit that you are shilling for Obama.
    I did not see any, repeat any, shocking information. It could only be perceived as shocking by a devotee of Barack Obama.

    Reply

  2. Joe Klein's conscience says:

    I doubt the Obama-Biden campaign cares in the slightest, but it really does make CNN look silly.
    CNN’s middle name is silly. Do you know what makes silly? Tooting your own horn makes you look silly. “The best political team on TV”? Do they know how crass that looks? Or they don’t care?

    Reply

  3. NWO says:

    Biden may be known to insiders, but to most hard working Americans he is an unknown; one of 100 Senators, who happens to have a compelling biography. I think your surprise at the naming of this compelling piece by CNN was in fact very “compelling” for middle America.
    Time to get out of your East Coast mindset.

    Reply

  4. ToddinHB says:

    Richard Cohen seems to be launching the S.S. Harriet Miers, but renamed the Sarah Palin. The literati of the Republican Party are beginning to turn on her, and only Rush and his minions will be left to defend her.

    Reply

  5. croatoan says:

    The Obama and McCain profiles also used “revealed.”

    Reply

  6. Bill says:

    I couldn’t agree with you more. And they made it seem like a hatchet job on Biden.

    Reply

  7. questions says:

    Revealing Cohen, revealing McC:
    I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty. Those doing the accusing usually attributed my feelings to McCain being accessible. This is the journalist-as-puppy school of thought: Give us a treat, and we will leap into a politician’s lap.
    Not so. What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story — that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity.
    McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir — the person in whose hands he would leave the country — is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/15/AR2008091502406.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
    It’ll be interesting to watch as this kind of piece filters through the media world.
    (Also, go to kos and check out the vid of “Hockey Moms for Truth” — it’s worth the trip!)

    Reply

  8. KathyF says:

    I have to defend CNN here. They also did two very good pieces on
    Obama and McCain, which I saw on CNN International (no idea if
    they were shown on regular CNN). I never saw the use of the word
    ‘reveal’ as sensationalistic. It merely described the nature of the
    shows, revealing looks at the candidates’ early lives. The Obama
    piece actually included information I’d not known, and I’m
    something of an Obama-phile.
    I’d love to know if the VP pieces are on CNN International as well, or
    if any of them are available online. Anyone got a link?

    Reply

  9. thetruth says:

    Did the CNN piece talk at all about Sarah Palin’s apocalyptic, end-
    of-times church?
    http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/13/1538/09770

    Reply

  10. tom.a says:

    I’m impressed they were able to fill an hour on Palin! What do we
    really know about her? She’s never given CNN an interview, she’s
    only done one in the 2.5 weeks we’ve known she was the VP and
    even if they played the entirety of that interview there would still
    be a good 20 minutes to fill. We know nothing about this person.

    Reply

  11. Lynne says:

    I know that you feel that Biden has been in the spotlight for 35 years, but you have to remember that there are lots of new voters who truly know very little about the political process or the players. I suppose that “revealed” was a bit over the top, but they probably felt that they had to use the same sort of title for both. And for those voters who are just now waking up, “revealed” may be the correct word.

    Reply

  12. David Pincus says:

    Last night, I had that show on and was only half watching. I was shocked when the subject turned to the Clarence Thomas nomination hearings and I thought I heard the narrator refer to the allegations by Anita Hill as being fallacious. I might have missed something but I did not hear the narrator indicate what the basis was for that conclusion. Did anyone else pick up on that? If anything, I thought that David Brock’s research came up with evidence that would tend to support Hill’s allegations. As far as I know Hill stands by her allegations and they have never been proven untrue.
    What is with CNN? I thought that CNN was supposed to be a cut above the other cable networks.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *