Dan Abrams

Casey Anthony Coverage: Far Less Dangerous Than Media's Political Reporting

2011-07-11T17:09:05-04:00

I am rarely accurate with prognostications or predictions but I am feeling pretty confident about two things: 1) there will be another high-profile trial in the not too distant future, like Casey Anthony’s, that will capture the attention of the nation and the media; and 2) it will be followed by the hand-wringing and utter despair about the future of media that trail every high-profile case. In fact, there is no surer way to be the belle of your media critic’s ball than to blast the Casey Anthony media coverage. From hackneyed assertions that “it’s not journalism,” to characterizations of it as “merchandising in tragedy,", to the populist position that it’s “just entertainment,” the Anthony coverage, like so many trials before it, serves as the ultimate media scapegoat.

Despite the fact that I covered the story as much as almost anyone (well no, since I do not work for HLN), I’m not going to defend the amount of coverage, nor claim that the future of the Republic somehow rests on the shoulders of the trial of a 20-something year-old accused and now acquitted, child killer. Yes, high-profile trials can be riveting and I believe they do lead to a better understanding of our third branch of government, but there’s no question they are covered at the expense of far more important issues like the economy, Libya, the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, etc.

No, this case, and the spectacle trials before it, are the sorts of stories many are too sheepish to admit they are closely following, much less actively covering. HLN saw huge ratings increases, but they won’t be seeing any industry accolades for that coverage. In fact, HLN and star host Nancy Grace have now become piñatas for “real” (a.k.a capital J) journalists, and those attempting to ingratiate themselves with the folks who take the proverbial bat to trial coverage.

As for Nancy Grace, she and I went head to head for almost six weeks every morning on Good Morning America. I agreed with her some of the time, and disagreed with her at least as often. Did I think her reference to Casey Anthony as “tot mom” was silly? Sure. But Nancy was honest about her position on the case and while she can be over the top, her take was based in the facts as she saw them. That transparency allows viewers to decide if they believe she is responding like a mother or a “monster."

But there is a far bigger problem here. Many of the most outspoken critics (amateur and professional) of the Anthony coverage are the very same people who relish intensive political coverage. They spend hours upon hours on discussion and analysis of who is up or down -- who is running or who is not, and who made the most egregious gaffe that day. Yet the horse-race political coverage and gotcha moments that define most of today’s political coverage are not just equally insignificant as news events, they are far more insidious.

To read the rest of this article visit Mediaite.com.

Please Stop Complaining About the Media's 'Ground Zero Mosque' Coverage

2010-08-31T10:43:34-04:00

Now that the initial furor has died down, much of the media is quickly coming to a consensus that the debate over building a Muslim community and prayer center two blocks from Ground Zero was overblown. It is/was part of a "summer of fear," a "ginned up rage," or "a frenzy over a story that doesn't really exist." Media hand-wringing and navel-gazing often follow the hysteria of an over-covered story in an effort to downplay and dismiss the media's own coverage. After all, the media, loves to cover nothing more than, well, itself (ahem, hence Mediaite).

But was this story really the equivalent of summer sharks, missing girls and frightening weather? Is the media to ignore or diminish a story where 70 percent of the public and 63 percent of New Yorkers oppose building the center in that location? Surely many will blame the media coverage itself for those numbers, and it is true that like any story that receives a lot of media attention, public awareness of the "Ground Zero Mosque" has had an impact on the "Ground Zero Mosque" story. (It's also true that few complained when the project was first announced many months ago.)

But the fact that most didn't know about it doesn't mean they wouldn't have cared if they did. The ultimate question is whether this was/is a legitimate story ripe for significant media coverage, or just a political and xenophobic ploy disguised as a news debate. Sure, some have hidden behind the "debate" to encourage islamophobia, and most of them have been appropriately called out by their political opponents in the opinion media time and again. Amongst the mainstream media, however, the pendulum is now swinging too far in the other direction, as many run for cover from a story that not only deserved coverage, but the media was really obligated to cover, if the standards for judging news have not been altered for this story.

So then I must be part of the "move the mosque" crowd? I mean, how could I believe the extensive coverage is appropriate if I also think the Cordoba Initiative should be permitted to move forward in that spot? Well, just because I happen to support any religion's right to build a facility two blocks from Ground Zero, just because I do not equate radical Islamists with the peaceful Islamic religion, just because I think it would be unconstitutional to try to impede it, does not mean this is not a legitimate story worthy of debate.

To the chagrin of many, the media gravitates towards controversy. It is in their (our) DNA. Whether anyone or everyone likes it or not, it is what they do. It's why politics and sports, mystery and mayhem dominate coverage. This story includes the ultimate elixir for media coverage: emotion, politics, terrorism, religion and bias. Some will say that the existence of those elements alone shouldn't mean that the media must play into the hands of those appealing to biases and the most base of human instincts. True, so then what makes this controversy deserving of days and days of saturated media coverage? Who knows how much coverage is appropriate, but it's obvious that when terrorists attack the U.S., sensitivities will be high to anything large built in that area a year after the fact or even almost ten years later. The area around Ground Zero is news because it's Ground Zero. Period. Building a center two blocks away that supports the very cause that the terrorists claimed (at least by name) was their calling increases its news value exponentially. It doesn't validate the terrorists' warped view of Islam, but, like it or not, in this day and age, it makes it news. Simply dismissing the entire controversy as a non-story is to presume that no one should question the prudence of building the facility at that location. That is also to take a side in the debate.

Consider another hypothetical example. A radical group of extremist Jews who claim to be angry about Turkey's role in the Gaza boat fiasco bring down the Sapphire Tower, a brand new modern high rise in the heart of the Istanbul financial district. Turkey has long been lauded by the international community for welcoming different religions and is considered a beacon of multiculturalism. The Israeli government and all major Jewish groups immediately condemn the attack in the harshest terms.

The rebuilding effort takes years, and in the meantime, a mainstream Jewish group proposes building a Jewish cultural center and synagogue two blocks from the location of the downed skyscraper. Of course there would be complaints, some based on antisemitism, others based on the sensitivity of the location. But even if you disagree with them, would we question whether it is a legitimate story worthy of extensive debate on the news stations, websites and newspapers of the region? Would we minimize those questions by constantly referring to the summer news doldrums? Like in this case, I would personally think those questions founded in a misunderstanding of the Jewish faith and the unfortunate conflation of Jews and radicals, but I would still recognize and appreciate why the local media was covering the story. A lot.

Should we question how some have covered this story here? Of course. Should we critique those who have nakedly tried to milk it for political gain or not so nakedly appealed to prejudice? You bet. But for members of the media to scapegoat their brethren as a whole for focusing on this is to become blinded by their own political biases. Everyone would like to see a Utopian media where only the most "important" stories of the day are covered, but until that happens, lets admit that singling out this one for particular scorn is to either highlight the author's take on who is right, or to usher in a completely new standard for judging what is news.

This post originally appeared on Mediaite.

Frank Rich Fails In Comparing WikiLeaks To Pentagon Papers

2010-08-02T10:54:51-04:00

Frank Rich is frustrated. He is clearly annoyed that the Wikileaks release of almost 92,000 pages of documents related to the war in Afghanistan has not become more of a rallying cry to end that military effort. Or more specifically, he is seeking to reassure those hoping it will ultimately have that impact, to be patient.

In Sunday's New York Times, he writes: "As the president conducts his scheduled reappraisal of his war policy this December, a re-examination of 1971 might lead him to question his own certitude of what he is fond of calling "the long view." But of course, what Rich really means is that it's maddening to him that this disclosure of information is -not- having that sweeping effect. "Last week the left and right reached a rare consensus. The war logs are no Pentagon Papers," Rich wrote ruefully. So there began Rich's effort to equate two very different leaks of information about two wholly different wars.

It is a nice narrative and an interesting read, but when Rich leaps on the rhetorical springboard here, the dive becomes somewhat disastrous. About Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971), Rich writes: "What Ellsberg's leak did do was ratify the downward trend-line of the war's narrative. The WikiLeaks legacy may echo that. We may look back at the war logs as a herald of the end of America's engagement in Afghanistan just as the Pentagon Papers are now a milestone in our slo-mo exit from Vietnam." This hardly veiled effort by Rich to piggyback on Ellsberg's widely lauded efforts fall flat after even a cursory examination of the two situations.

The Pentagon Papers were drafted in response to a request from the Secretary of Defense seeking definitive conclusions about the war he was overseeing. The Vietnamese conflict was dragging on and secretary Robert S. McNamara wanted answers to the most fundamental of questions: how did we get here and why are we there at all? The answers, provided in the form of the Pentagon Papers, demonstrated that five administrations had at best shaded the truth, and at worst completely obscured it. The Wikileaks documents, on the other hand, were military documents written by those in the field describing primarily military assessments and sometimes embarrassing setbacks that both the Bush and Obama administrations had not made public. They provide specifics as to certain failures, what can be best characterized as anecdotes. The Pentagon Papers, on the contrary, offered a historically rooted response to the ultimate question: Should we be there at all?

Sure, both were about wars, and both revealed information that administrations did not want made public. But it's obvious why both sides of the political spectrum have, in Rich's words, reached a "rare consensus." Because, unless one is seeking to use this leak as a sword to end all American military involvement in Afghanistan, as Rich clearly is, the comparison fails. Think about comparing a dossier of private emails to a researched essay. While they are ostensibly both written documents, they hold very different reasons for being and play very different roles in the communication of ideas.

This, of course, does not change the reality that serious questions must be asked about our ongoing effort in Afghanistan. The disclosures expose military setbacks and additional problems with Pakistan, in particular. As troubling as that is, it does not change the fact that, unlike the Vietnam War, there is no question about why we are in Afghanistan in the first place. Every major political figure of both parties has long agreed that military action had to be taken in Afghanistan after 9/11 as the Taliban continued to protect those directly responsible for the attacks on the United States. Nothing similar can be said of the war in Vietnam.

Does that mean that nine years later we must continue this level of military involvement there? Of course not. The extent of our military commitment is a separate and distinct question but it is disingenuous to appear almost baffled about why we are there at all. And even more so to then compare it to a war that was, at best, an effort to thwart a highly theoretical threat as opposed to one that was a direct retaliation for acts of aggression against the U.S.

In fact, seen purely through the prism of the leaks themselves, this one is far more perilous. While these Wikileaks documents were deemed "secret" as opposed to "top secret," the Pentagon Papers were an already three year-old historical review when leaked. The Wikileaks documents are from just last year and it now publicly names names. Taliban leaders have already threatened to retaliate against those Afghans mentioned in the documents who helped the U.S. effort. Furthermore, in 1971, The New York Times and Washington Post took great care when publishing the Pentagon Papers to work with the administration to retract particularly sensitive information that could threaten national security. While the Times appears to have done so this time around as well, the full documents are now readily available on the web.

Rich wrote that it was time to "inject a little reality into the garbling of Vietnam-era history," but in the process he conflates two dissimilar leaks about two even more dissimilar wars and himself ends up garbling the very reality he sought to illuminate.

This post originally appeared on Mediaite.com.

Elena Kagan: Way Too Boring For Scandal-Starved Media

2010-05-12T17:44:37-04:00

It must have been a virtual scream on newsroom/blogger computer screens around the nation. The moment it became clear that President Obama would be nominating Elena Kagan, editors simultaneously posing the same and obvious question: What do we really know about her? Of course, it is a far more loaded question than it seems. Yes, her background as a New York-born Harvard Law grad and Dean who was most recently Solicitor General of the United States is of interest. Oh, and she spent two years at Oxford, too. Yeah, yeah, yeah... but they want to know what we really KNOW about her. What is the dirt? What are her most controversial comments, articles, positions? Does she hate our country?

Was she ever a late term abortion provider? Did she once compare Speaker Nancy Pelosi to David Duke?

After all, her comments and writings on the really important issues like the First Amendment, Executive Power and the Commerce Clause are, well...kinda nuanced. She may want cameras in the Supreme Court? Whatever. She opposed the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy and consequently tried to keep recruiters off campus? A good start -- but far more controversial just a few years ago. Come on, they don't quite need the pubic hair on a Coke can, but the media is looking for at least a "Wise Latina" meme to obsess over for a few weeks.

Alas, thus far no dice. These specks of spongy legal dirt do not exactly offer fleshy and easily understandable outrage that serves as the media's lifeblood. Even questions about her sexuality have, fortunately, been relegated to those analyzing how the media should cover it and not as a substantive issue that would impact her nomination.

It seems this controversy vacuum is now leading to overt frustration expressed on both sides of the media political aisle. From Glenn Greenwald to Glenn Beck, Ezra Klein to Erick Erickson, columnists, bloggers and pundits are now bemoaning the dearth of ~~public statements on crucial issues or legal rulings to examine~~, ahem, controversy. Don't be fooled by those suggesting a limited paper trail should somehow serve as a disqualifying factor. It's not and, of course, shouldn't be -- it's just the only sword many partisans seeking a legal road map from her could muster thus far.

Always trying to appear objective, the mainstream media has its own brand of bias: an institutional one towards controversy. They are looking to dig up a topic du jour and it's hard work keeping the archaeological effort going. For them, its not about defeating or supporting the nomination as much as it is about adding spice to the chili. They seek to find some controversy, often tangential, that opponents of the nomination will then pounce upon as proof of the nominee's unfitness for the job while exclaiming that the 'people have a right to know'. It is a sometimes dysfunctional but certainly symbiotic relationship.

Continue reading this post here.

The Unedited Truth: Why MSNBC Re-Airs 9/11 Coverage

2009-09-11T16:00:02-04:00

Isn't it ghastly? Will we be accused of capitalizing on the nation's grief? Is it still too soon?

Those were just some of the questions we faced when deciding whether to replay NBC's 9/11 coverage when I was General Manager of MSNBC back in 2006. As I watched MSNBC air that coverage for a fourth year today, many of those same questions remain.

It wasn't an easy call. After retrieving the tapes and watching the first four hours from that morning, beginning with the "reports" of a plane crash, it was clear the coverage from the morning was beyond mesmerizing. Seeing the events unfold in real time on television forces us to relive those emotions and feelings moment by moment. In the initial minutes we retain a glimmer of hope that maybe - just maybe - it isn't quite as bad as it seems. As time passes, however, those shooting pains re-emerge as each terrifying detail of the morning unfolds, ultimately leading to the conclusion that it is that bad, and worse. The NBC anchor and reporting team handled it as well as anyone could have hoped. They were careful, methodical, at times overtly saddened but always calm.

I knew people would watch the replay, but when dealing with 9/11 we all knew the decision could not and would not be one based on ratings. The question had to be, is it the right thing to do?

Some have called it gruesome or ghoulish, even referring to it as "death porn". Maybe so, but it also really happened. New York City is spending well over a half billion dollars to create a memorial to ensure we never forget that day. What better way to assure that happens, than by watching the event, as it happened for most, on television? It's powerful and disturbing because it's so real. Simply put, there is no way to sanitize that day, and to do so would be a disservice.

That does not mean the country was ready for the replay in the first couple of years after 9/11. The difference? In 2003, for example, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were getting underway, 9/11 was still effectively news, not history. At what point does that definition change? It's tough to say. In 2006, 9/11 was not being covered or discussed nearly as often and it had just started to feel it was fading into the background for many.

No one was forced to watch MSNBC coverage. I watched it for the fourth year in a row. Many others will have chosen to change the channel. But in a world where cable news is often consumed with internecine and sometimes invented squabbles, seeing one of the most important moments in American history as it aired, in real time, seems to be exactly what cable news can and should do best.

Originally posted on Mediaite.

Remembering Dominick Dunne

2009-08-26T21:54:44-04:00

It was no easy feat becoming Dominick Dunne. Think about it. He was the most celebrated chronicler of downtrodden socialites. He feasted on their famine with little sympathy or admiration for their formerly exalted positions. Yet somehow they invited him back. Not only was he invited back to the most exclusive and social-est of socialite events, but his attendance celebrated. If Dominick Dunne's cackle could be heard in the room, it was, by definition an A-list event.

So how did he do it? How in the often surreptitious world of vapid excess did he break their tacit rules of secrecy and still return to a hero's welcome every night? How did the man once blackballed from the Hollywood insider scene he so adored manage to avoid reliving that fate as he dissected the innards of the latest society scandale? Some might say as he aged, his unimposing appearance helped. Small, rotund and bespectacled, walking with what might be described as a waddle, Dominick never looked or felt remotely intimidating. But that explanation hardly does him justice. He was not a jovial "little man." Dominick Dunne had a dark side and dark past. In the end, he utilized the same tools that made him a great reporter to transform himself into an equally welcome, acclaimed, and ever so eloquent social traitor.

He listened, he followed up, he cared. Truly. He knew what people wanted to hear and said it, often along with a guffaw. Dominick working a party often felt like an animated film -- bright colors, loud noises, and action packed adventure. But more important, he extracted confidence by regaling groups with self-deprecating stories of his own life as well as amusing but relatively innocuous gossip about others. His disarming manner combined with the media muscle of his Vanity Fair column led most to forgive what might be seen in some cases as social perfidy. Maybe forgive is too strong, because he also had something so many of them coveted, the key to a world of fame and, when necessary, the key out.

On the one hand, the uber-social and often equally wealthy were generally appreciative of, if not downright eager, to be mentioned by the equally social (but not quite as wealthy) Dominick Dunne, but they almost never wanted to be the subject of his latest piece. After all, that likely meant that he or she was accused of something dark, scandalous and almost certainly criminal.

I met Dominick when I was a cub reporter for Court TV on the OJ Simpson case. He was, at that time, just beginning to enjoy his notoriety as a celebrity journalist covering and critiquing the celebrity world. During the nine months of that trial all the reporters developed the sort of friendships you generally only develop in college living together day in and day out. Day after day we took our assigned seats in the courtroom and then met in the hall during breaks as we stalked the attorneys. As a 28-year-old reporter for a small cable channel, I turned to him as a mentor. I was hungry and eager to break stories. He admired that tenacity and devotion. But he wasn't looking to be the purveyor of sage advice. He wanted information from me, too.

What started as a symbiotic professional relationship became a cherished friendship. He introduced me to his fantasy world. It felt like he knew everyone in Hollywood. Anytime we went out to dinner to discuss the latest in the case, we would spend a third of the evening greeting well wishers, often faces anyone would recognize. "Oh and you must know Dan Abrams of Court TV," he would say, which, of course, they didn't. But it wasn't just social. He was working, too. Many would provide him with a nugget of information or gossip at which point he would scramble to scribble it down in one of his leather notebooks. They trusted him and so did I. His work was his life because his life was also his work. The things he seemed to love most were socializing with the elite and then writing about them.

He was forty years my senior and I would say that even then he was less like a father figure and more like my great, cool, interesting friend. I introduced him to girlfriends, went out for nights on the town and shared some of my most jealously protected secrets. While I did not see him as much in the last few years I always knew he was there when I needed him and vice versa.

I will miss my pal Dominick Dunne. I am sure his funeral will be just the sort of event he would have loved. Based on who will be there, I am sure he wishes he could have been there to cover it.

This post originally appeared on Mediaite.

Cronkite Coverage That Might Make Cronkite Cringe

2009-07-18T14:35:00-04:00

It's hard to believe that Walter Cronkite has not been a staple on the air for over 28 years. Through all that time, he has achieved something few in this age of information overload could do when removed from the spotlight for so long. He remained the standard bearer, the person so many journalists wished they could be. His name is not just synonymous with industry greatness, but with an industry that no longer exists. And so many believe his passing represents more than the end of a television news icon, but the end of iconic news television.

For anyone in the news business, just the name "Cronkite" conjures up images of a bygone era when journalists covered, and could at times impact, the most important stories of the day, rather than the most "compelling" or salacious. Redford and Newman's All The Presidents Men was the big screen image of journalists rather than Will Ferrell's Anchorman.

Even if that memory has been glorified a bit, it's for that reason that every major journalist is now vying to be part of the Cronkite coverage (including, I suppose, this one). No question so many grew up watching Cronkite's masterful work over the years -- from war zones to the White House. And those who knew him well have offered moving tributes to Cronkite the man. But showing one's respect for Walter Cronkite also means paying homage to what the Cronkite name has come to represent -- a time when it would have been unthinkable to cover Michael Jackson's death day after day. When the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would still be front and center rather than the vicissitudes of the hottest reality show. As some in media speak wistfully about the Cronkite days, they are also making decisions that would make Cronkite cringe. To watch a rerun of a Cronkite news program today is to see something more akin to a current PBS broadcast than much of what appears on network news.

Actions speak louder than words. Even in reporting on his death many journalists have violated one of Cronkite's basic tenets: report the news don't become it. How many times this weekend have we heard top journalists memorializing Cronkite with sentences beginning with the word I. "I met Cronkite in. . ." or "I remember seeing him. . ."

Let's be honest, the Cronkite era passed long before his death. Financial pressures, the demand of ratings, the changing tastes of the American public all led to new decisions in newsrooms about what to cover and how. Having reported on many of the most notorious trials of the past two decades (including that of Michael Jackson) I have no claim to Cronkiteian journalistic purity.

The same applies, however, to some of my colleagues now attempting to tether themselves to Cronkite's legacy. I am confident Cronkite would have frowned on that too.

This post originally appeared at Mediaite.com.

Introducing Mediaite

2009-07-07T09:57:27-04:00

Welcome to Mediaite, the website of and about the media. It's my hope that after checking out the site you will see this as a unique property that will quickly become the must-read for anyone interested in media, the business of it and the personalities behind it. We have assembled some of the most respected and engaging media writers in the country as well as dynamic features including a media influence index and a job board that can assist media professionals, even those seeking new careers.

For me, this site is the manifestation of a vision I have had for many years. When I was General Manager of MSNBC I helped create a segment called “Beat The Press” which I then continued on my show Verdict. In that segment, I had some fun with media hypocrisy, gaffes, and self-righteousness. Some of that same sensibility will be evident here — except this time I am not making the calls. While I have certainly helped create the tone and direction of Mediaite, now that the site is live, I will take on the role of Publisher. I will continue to help guide and manage the business side of the site, but the editorial decisions will be left entirely to the editorial staff.

Why would I give up the opportunity to edit my own site? There are a number of reasons. Most important, however, I want this site to be viewed as objective - tough and opinionated - but not the Dan Abrams Post. I have strong feelings about many in media and will write opinion columns for the site but the editorial team will determine the editorial content. When you think about the team we have assembled, it's easy to understand why I feel so comfortable -- Managing Editor Colby Hall, Editor-at-Large Rachel Sklar (former Huffington Post media editor) , Senior Editor Glynnis MacNicol (former FishbowlNY editor), and TV Editor Steve Krakauer (former TV Newser editor) (among others) — are top of class.

There are also other considerations. For example, today I don't know that I would be perceived as fair in reporting on someone like Jeff Zucker (ranked #1 on our T.V. Titans list). Jeff made my career as a reporter, and had the faith to make me General Manager of MSNBC. When I asked to go back to hosting a show, he let me do just that and later when MSNBC later replaced Verdict with the more network-appropriate Rachel Maddow Show (which I really like…Rachel is #40, btw), Zucker along with NBC News President Steve Capus (#7), and MSNBC President Phil Griffin (#38) went out of their way to offer me a number of other on-air positions, including another regular MSNBC anchor slot and fill-in time hosting the Today show.

Instead, I decided to start my own businesses and Jeff still encouraged me to stay on as the outside Chief Legal Analyst for NBC, which remains my title today. It would be fair to say that I might not be perceived as objective about him and more importantly about NBC since I still have a deal with them. While it's true that one doesn't have to look hard to find other examples of media critics who report for media entities, that is not a role I want at this time.

Why start another site about media now? Well, I say: Why not? While traditional journalism as we have known it is clearly in decline, a whole new vibrant media world is springing up to take its place. There are actually more people than ever working in some form of media. This new media world is far more fractured and comes with its own rules of engagement. All of which makes this an incredibly exciting time to cover the industry.

As for monetizing the site, we will be trying a 360 approach -- integrated sponsorships, innovative ads, an interactive job board and events and conferences. We are thrilled to be kicking it off with HBO as our launch sponsor.

As you may have seen, just the fact that we are launching this site has led to just a bit of buzz, which has been really exciting. So much so, that some even criticized the site before it had even launched! That included fictional doomsday narratives about how the site might become a secret vehicle to promote clients of my expanding social media/media consulting business, Abrams Research. It is very straightforward: this site is separate and distinct from that business. It's no different than any other individuals and/or media companies with an interest in more than one venture. Furthermore, here the editorial team has complete autonomy.

If you’re in media - or just into media - we want you to consider this your site. We view this as a work in progress and while we’ve tried to make it as comprehensive as possible, we want your feedback and criticism (umm a site about media, I'm guessing I did not need to ask for that). We expect to make many changes as the site matures but no, we won't change the name! While it does not exactly slip off the tongue, the idea is easy to remember. How better to convey the concept that we are of, and about the media than becoming a Media-ite! Our softball team is the Mediaite Meteorites. No, not really.

In the meantime, enjoy Mediaite. It's for the media, it's about the media and it is part of the new media.

The following post originally appeared at Mediaite.com.

Presumed Innocent? Bernie Madoff?

2009-03-01T21:31:44-05:00

People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it.

I don't presume that Bernie Madoff is innocent. The same goes for toddler Caylee Anthony's mom Casey, or for any of the alleged mobsters on trial in New York, or most other high-profile defendants. Certain defense attorneys (or former Illinois governors who effectively decide to represent themselves) would have you believe that is somehow shameful, maybe even anti-American.

As a citizen -- or even a TV legal analyst -- am I required to presume innocence, i.e., that the authorities arrest the wrong person in every case? Not a chance. Imagine how this might play out on television:

"So Dan, how bad is it for (insert name of minor reality-show celebrity here) that the authorities found a pound of cocaine and four ounces of heroin on his person and in his car, the entire arrest was captured on videotape and the defendant confessed the drugs were his?"

"Bad? Bob, I have to presume the defendant innocent, so I'll presume those drugs were planted by corrupt police officers well before the car came into focus on the tape. And that confession? Well, it must have been coerced." That would hardly reflect an effort to assess and evaluate the legal strategies and evidence as fairly and objectively as possible.

While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so.

Traced back to Deuteronomy, and reportedly embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens, the presumption ensures that government, which has the enormous power to take away someone's freedom, assumes the burden to prove its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, the properly demanding legal standard in criminal proceedings.

Essentially we stack the legal deck in favor of the defendant. After all, the potential consequence (in most cases prison time) is so grave that we say we would rather let "10 guilty men go free than convict an innocent one." But unless I am sitting in the jury box armed with that power I, and any other nonjuror for that matter, have no obligation, moral or legal, to embrace that legal fiction.

The same applies, for example, to hearsay evidence. It's generally inadmissible in court, and yet most of us live our lives based on what people we trust tell us they heard or learned.

Some claim that, because legal banditos like me refuse to presume every defendant innocent, the prospective jury pool is polluted, thereby making it impossible for jurors to presume innocent a defendant in a high-profile case. Malarkey. That is why we have jury selection.

The goal is not to find jurors who necessarily know nothing about a case, but to find jurors who can fairly evaluate evidence and determine guilt or innocence. No question, extensive media coverage can make the selection of a jury take longer. In a worst-case scenario, a change of venue would be the remedy. But defense attorneys who complain about poisoned jury pools are often really just saying that they think prospective jurors are lying when asked what they've heard about the case in the media.

Watching jury selection during the O.J. Simpson civil case in Santa Monica in 1996 served as a reminder that, lo and behold, not everyone follows news that closely. Did every juror know about the criminal case that had concluded in downtown Los Angeles months earlier? Of course. Did they know some of the facts? Surely. But they were also not O.J. junkies who had followed the ins and outs of the case. They were open to rendering a verdict based on what they heard in court.

What about those like CNN's Nancy Grace who seems to presume every defendant guilty? Criticize her if you like, but such behavior doesn't mean the rest of us must feign ignorance. We can question police and prosecutors without necessarily presuming they are corrupt or misguided.

Early in the investigation of the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape in 2006, some of the very same people who suggest that the presumption of innocence be applied in all aspects of society demanded that action be taken immediately against the students. The case is now regularly cited as an example of how important it is to presume all defendants innocent in the media as well.

But that misses the point. Those of us who examined the evidence, even superficially, quickly realized the case was flimsy at best. The lesson there was not about presumptions but about the need to critically evaluate facts.

Demanding that all of us presume every defendant innocent outside of a courtroom is to demand that we stop evaluating facts, thereby suffocating independent thought and opinion. There is nothing "reasonable" about that.

Mr. Abrams is NBC News chief legal analyst and the CEO of Abrams Research.

This article originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal

Bill O'Reilly Should Not Be Giving Quizzes on the Factor

2008-06-26T21:01:13-04:00

A Letter to Karl Rove

2008-04-21T15:30:27-04:00

April 21, 2008

Dear Mr. Rove:

I write in response to your letter about my coverage of the Siegelman case -- a case we have been covering extensively. Its potential significance to the American justice system extends well beyond the halls of the Alabama Statehouse.

Your letter poses questions that you believe I should have asked as part of our coverage, but many of the most significant ones only you can answer. I address your specific critique below, but I begin by wondering, based on many of your questions, whether you actually saw, or reviewed, all of our coverage. Or perhaps, as you put it, "you don't want the facts to get in the way of a good fable."

You accuse me of "diminishing the search for facts and evidence," yet thus far you have refused to answer any questions under oath or even from me that would aid in that very search.

In that respect, I want to be very clear that we repeatedly sought, through your lawyer, your presence on my program to respond to allegations made about you. I repeated that invitation on the air last week. I repeat it again by this letter.

In your letter, you ask:

Does it bother you, as your coverage asserts, as Governor Siegelman summarized it in his April 7th appearance on your program, that he is the victim of a vast conspiracy involving two US Attorneys, the Alabama Attorney General, unnamed career officials in the Public Integrity Unit at the U.S. Justice Department, unnamed higher ups in the Justice Department, and, oh yes, Karl Rove and that there is not a single piece of paper, not a single email, not a single conversation, not a single disgruntled career employee who's come forward, not one credible witness to the workings of a conspiracy?

First, my coverage never "asserted" that Governor Siegelman is "the victim of a vast conspiracy," or even that he is necessarily innocent. I do not, and did not, feel comfortable passing judgment on that ultimate question. I repeatedly stated that on the air. Reading your letter, one would falsely presume that I have blindly accepted all of his claims at face value.

This is a prosecution, however, that led over 50 former Attorneys General from around the nation -- Democrats and Republicans -- to express their concern to Congress about the basic fairness of the case. I share many of those concerns. I too have serious questions about the way the case was handled. Given that, is it your contention that it's journalistically unsound to allow the former Governor of the state of Alabama to even state his position on the air?

Or would you expect a responsible journalist to say something like this to the Governor: "Anyone looking at the record would say, 'wait a second, you were convicted by a jury of seven counts.' This is, you know, a jury of 12 ordinary folks who looked at the evidence with regard to bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud and said, 'Governor Siegelman is guilty.'" That I did in my interview with Governor Siegelman on April 7, 2008.

And would you expect a good journalist to seek out and read the denial from Karl Rove's attorney? That I did as well.

And maybe even to have said, "Governor, it sounds like you are alleging corruption on so many different levels. I mean -- I think some people can accept the notion that, you know, there are certain Republicans who are out to get you, etc, but as we talk more about this, there are more people involved and it sounds like you're saying that the corruption here was pretty deep?" I also did that. But maybe my questions do not fit with, as you put it, your "pre-selected" story line?

My "pre-selected story line" was not pre-selected at all. It was my considered conclusion -- and my only conclusion -- after assessing a number of troubling aspects about the case and the prosecution of it, that the Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta should order the release of the former Governor pending his appeal. The appeals court did just that over the objection of the trial judge. The appellate judges cited "substantial questions of law and fact."

I too have substantial questions of law and fact about the case and some of them involve you.

You seem particularly incensed that I interviewed Dana Jill Simpson, a Republican who had volunteered for the campaign of Siegelman's opponent and claimed, in sworn testimony, that she heard conversations about you and your involvement.

You ask why only later did she claim that you asked her to follow the Governor to attempt to take compromising photos. Specifically, you wrote, "Did it not bother you Ms. Simpson failed to mention the claim she made to CBS for their February 24, 2008 story, that you then repeated on February 25th?"

Fair question. Which is why I asked her the following on February 25, 2008:

ABRAMS: And why have you never mentioned before the allegations of Rove and the pictures?

SIMPSON: Oh, I mentioned it to people. They just did not use it. Because nobody wanted to go into the fact that I had been following Don Siegelman trying to get pictures of him cheating on his wife.

ABRAMS: But some of your critics have said, "You know, in front of Congress she had a lot of opportunities. Why didn't she mention this before?"

SIMPSON: Well let me explain something to you. I talked to congressional investigators, Dan. And when I talked to those congressional investigators I told them that I had followed Don Siegelman and tried to get pictures of him cheating on his wife. However, they suggested to me that that was not relevant because there was nothing illegal about that and they'd just prefer that not come up at the hearing that day.

We repeatedly offered your attorney a chance to rebut the claims. Dana Jill Simpson testified under oath about this case while thus far you have refused to do so. If she is lying, she should be prosecuted. But as a journalist isn't it fair to ask why you don't welcome the opportunity to testify as well? With sworn false testimony, there are repercussions. Without it, there is no accountability.

You ask, "do you feel you have a responsibility to dig into the claims made by your guests..." Anyone who actually saw or even read the transcript of my coverage would have seen that I asked the Governor a whole series of pointed questions including this one: "You're not hinging this all, though, on Dana Jill Simpson are you? Because there have been a lot of people who have questioned how she could have been at certain meetings, how many times she actually met with people, where she was at the time, etc. I mean your allegations that Rove -- you believe Rove is behind this does not hinge entirely on the credibility of Dana Jill Simpson?" I also asked his daughter a similar question in a separate interview on February 27, 2008.

But many of their answers come back to you -- to your relationships with various Alabama officials, to the timing of the prosecution, to why new charges were filed after the first ones were dismissed. It seems that since they have not provided definitive documentary evidence to prove their contentions, many of which involve what they say they witnessed, heard or experienced, you think either I should not have interviewed them on air or dismissed their allegations out of hand.

In the end, the real answer to those questions can only come from a congressional investigation and an under-oath statement, not from some decision by me. In that respect, I am aware that you have been requested by the House Judiciary Committee to testify about these issues. You can be sure that I will report fairly and in detail whatever is said before that committee -- particularly if you appear before it.

In the wake of the US Attorney controversy and all of the questions surrounding this case, it is more than fair to ask -- in fact I would say its my journalistic duty to ask -- whether Karl Rove had any role in instigating the prosecution of a prominent Alabama Democrat given that you knew many of the players, and in a state where you had significant political connections. With that in mind, and in light of our seemingly shared desire to mine for the truth, I would invite you to answer some crucial questions about this case on my program or in a written response:

1) You say you "certainly didn't meet with anyone at the Justice Department or either of the two US attorneys in Alabama about investigating or indicting Siegelman." Did you talk to, or otherwise communicate with, any of them about it even if you did not meet? Did you have any discussions with any of them about this topic?

2) What about your old friend Bill Canary, whose wife initially led the prosecution? Are you denying that you spoke with him about anything related to the case?

3) You worked for former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor. Did you ever talk to him about anything related to the Siegelman matter?

4) Did you ever ask anyone else to communicate with any official in the Justice Department about the Siegelman investigation or case?

5) Do you know why your lawyer told us that you would testify about this case if you were subpoenaed but now, after you have been invited to do so, he states that there are issues of executive privilege: "Whether, when and about what a former White House official will testify ... is not for me or my client to decide" he said.

6) You have said you never spoke with the White House about the case. If true, what is the possible "executive privilege?"

7) You ask why I did not further question one of my guests when he discussed your effort to help now Governor Riley in his campaign. Did you consult in any way with Riley or anyone else working with him on the campaign?

8) Did you ever discuss, with anyone, the possibility of media leaks about the Siegelman case? Did you speak with any members of the media about Siegelman during his campaign?

Rather than continuing a spin campaign against the media and me, I hope you join me in attempting to restore faith in a hallmark of this nation; our apolitical Department of Justice now understandably and regrettably enveloped in a cloud of suspicion.

Sincerely,
Dan Abrams

Introducing...Verdict

2008-03-14T17:36:00-04:00

We are thrilled to be finally launching my new show Verdict on Monday. For the past six months, we have been assessing exactly what this show should be. Political? Legal? What about pop culture? Verdict will examine all of the most controversial stories of the day through the eyes of a critical lawyer. What will make the show unique is not as much which stories we cover, but how we cover them. I will be sure to let you know where I stand, back it up with facts and then make judgments on a wide range of stories. Knowing my "take" ensures there is no hidden agenda; then you can decide whether you agree. This is going to be a high-energy show that separates facts from talking points, reasoned opinion from agenda driven blather.

Too many programs on other networks, just invite two people on to "debate" some issue and leave viewers with little more than each side's talking points. I will try to use my legal background to assess right from wrong and ultimately announce the day's winners and losers.

A good example is our regular "On Their Trail" political segment where we compare the candidates' accusations and statements. Rather than simply have people discuss or debate the latest political spat with no resolution, we check the facts, assess the accusations and by the end of the segment we declare a loser -- the candidate who, on that day, is "guiltier" of more misstatements, cheap shots, and blunders.

My stint as General Manager of MSNBC made me particularly sensitive to how the big stories are covered. So as a lawyer, and Washington outsider, I will continue to lead the charge against the media if a story is not being covered fairly.

We are excited about our regular segments which will include: "Why America Hates Washington," "Beat The Press," "Winners and Losers," and our email segment called "The PO'd Box" which will include many emails from people who strongly disagree with me.

As you can see below, even the look of the show is different from anything else in the TV news business today. We won't just cover the biggest national stories and debates of the day, we render a "verdict."

Verdict will premiere Monday, March 17 at 9pm EST.

This post first appeared on MSNBC.

SuperDelegates Super Scam

2008-02-12T15:51:00-05:00

College junior Jason Rae's cell phone is blowing up, not with invites to tonight's kegger from the local sorority at Marquette University in Wisconsin, but with calls from the likes of Chelsea Clinton, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Sen. John Kerry and former President Bill Clinton.

Rae is one of 796 superdelegates, or free agents, who are not required to support the choice of primary and caucus voters for the Democratic nomination. And he's only 21 and has never voted in a presidential election.

And now everyone who is anyone has him on speed dial. On the eve of the South Carolina, Rae was out to dinner with friends when he got a call around 6pm. A voice on the other end said, "Hey Jason, its Bill here." And yesterday morning he sat down for a breakfast meeting with possible two-time first daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

Not that we doubt that Rae is a devoted party activist. He was elected as DNC member of the Wisconsin state party in June of 2004, he was just 17-years-old at the time, running against and defeating the president of the state firefighter's union, who is also a state legislator. On my show last night, Rae told us he's been riding his bike to county party meetings since he was about 14-years-old, volunteered for his first campaign at 15, and made his first donation at 16.

But come on, no offense to Jason here, but this is nuts! His vote has the impact of almost 10,000 voters! So that's why I'm calling all the superdelegates to step aside and support whoever the primary and caucus voters have chosen, before this becomes a purely political battle fought behind closed doors or on the cell phone lines in college town Wisconsin.

More on Dan Abrams.

Voters Not Superdelegates

2008-02-08T18:52:44-05:00

As Republicans get their political house in order with Romney bowing out
and Mccain making nice with the conservative wing of the party,
Democrats appear to be heading towards chaos. Most troubling is that
party insiders, members of Congress, union leaders, party officials and
an assortment of activists known as superdelegates, now hold the key to
the nomination for Obama or Clinton. Each of the superdelegates' votes
is now equivalent to about 10,000 Democratic voters. With the candidates
almost tied in delegates to date and with battles brewing over currently
disqualified delegates from Florida and Michigan, the Democrats must
move now--before the fight moves from a principled one to a purely
political one. Once it becomes clear exactly how the superdelegates will
impact the vote, an objective assessment will be impossible. In an
effort to avoid another Bush v. Gore crisis of confidence, we have
called for all the superdelegates to simply support the vote of their
state or district and effectively disqualify themselves now.

Watch the segment here

On Their Trail

2008-01-11T10:04:00-05:00

We've inaugurated a new segment on my show called, On Their Trail. It's our look at the candidates' misstatements, blunders and cheap shots. We've started this recurring segment because there are so many examples out there -- and too few in the mainstream media are keeping track.