Introducing...Verdict

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.

Comments

[Wilsonfisk89]

I have attempted 2 previous times to simply post this. " Blogs like this are sort of insulting, as there are more like advertisments dressed as blogs." Twice a moderator has decided that this post is so vile, so far against the Huffpo-Regime Party Line, that it has been banned. Head over to the Cheney article, and commenters are wishing for the Vice-President of the United States' death, saying they hope he gets murdered in Iraq. That got through a moderator. Hmmm. The sliding scale of liberal fascism...

[Marline]

I can't get my comment posted either. I think they didn't like my comment about the media and what they did to John Edwards. Anyway I'm pro Dan Abrams, he needs to keep up Beat The Press. Wish you all the luck in the world Dan but you won't need it, it will be a big hit.

[ann1]

I'll watch if Rachel Maddow is your co-host, if not.............can't do it.

[rinpochet]

I stopped Watching Dan Abrams a long time ago. He's so over the top for Hillary it's embarrassing!

Love Olbermann as he is fair. He stood up for Hillary when she deserved it in the past but he is ready to criticize at the same time. He is the ONLY thing I watch on MSNBC. The rest is rubbish.

[FadedGlory]

Dan, am anxiously awaiting your new format, Verdict! Have been a fan since the very early days on Court TV. I admit, I am an MSNBC junkie(but will also admit that I occasionally veer off, during commercials, of course, to check out CNN, and, okay, even "the fair and unbalanced") Fox-Flops...
very often watch "Gretta", she is the fairest one of them all..., and also would like to suggest that MSNBC consider a live show after your slot to compete; I'm pretty aged, but I don't go to bed at 9:00PM, and not to found of prisoners covered with tats. Keith hasen't had much time for his puppet shows lately....? Also, not sure how so many posting here, know so much about MSNBC shows, if they don't "peep" occasionally?....just wondering.

[in4success]

please! no more "check-marked" graphics and silly "keeping score" segments. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE . . . i miss some decent coverage on your show because i'm in the bathroom vomiting from your fluff (and pat buchannon) --- talk about someone lost in a time machine... WHEW!.

oh yeah . . . and how about some appeal toward viewers with an IQ above six. that would be nice.

heh.

[jinjinpinti]

Dan: I have to admit I do tend to turn on your show because it is less predictable than the others on your network. But do ya think you could deviate from all the other MSNBC talking potato heads and ditch Pat Buchanon in favor of a new potato head? Also that ridiculous gimmick with the score board is sooooo lame. Please expand the portion of your show that features dumb media crap and by all means, please, MORE RACHEL MADDOW.

[Lemeritus]

While Pat Buchanan is no John Dean, he is a conservative who sticks it to his party and that's a hard commodity to come by. As for Rachel Maddow... GIVE THIS WOMAN HER OWN SHOW!!! She's smart, she's funny, and -- rarer than rarer -- she seems to be a liberal first, and a Democrat second.

[AmandaRuth]

Mr Abrams, a daily koz poster is reporting that Gov Siegelman is being beaten in prision. Since you are the only media type with the courage to report on this unforgivable scandel, I thought maybe you cold look into it.

Thank you

[ErinG]

I will NOT be tuning in, for I am unable to stifle my gag reflex.

[finethnx]

Well, good luck with that. Too little, too late. Plus, we don't believe you, so there's that, too. You sort of missed your chance. Especially if this is part of your promotion-

"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."

It might fly if you left out the "on other networks" part, but most people who are interested in objectivity stopped watching NBC news and MSNBC a long time ago.

[lovethesinner]

One more suggestion:

Dump Mika and Joe. It's like a bad marriage.

I have a great alternative: Willy Geist and Andrea Mitchell in the Morning.

Here's why:

I noticed that when they filled in for Joe and Mika on "Morning Joe" that there was a real affection between them. It's really entertaining. It's something worth watching when you're just waking up, or (on the west coast) just going to sleep.

I'm sure Andrea doen't need the money, but she's a trail blazer, and I'll bet she'd like to be the first to start something "post conflict driven" in the "infotainment news" era.

It would be very unique. (yea, I know, you say it would be like the other "calm" morning shows, but... not really. None of them have someone who is a "REAL" journalist, or a guy so young who is so "not a real journalist".

It's different. (Trust me.)

Anyway, I can't believe that advertisers are dumb enough to believe that anyone would sit through the dysfuction of "Morning Joe" to be exposed to their commercials. (not that you're getting real advertisers at that time, now) As it is, the only way I can get through it is to TIVO it and fast forward through the parts when Joe is pontificating. (we could probably end global warming just by reducing his time talking.)

[Madampotential]

The only thing worth watching on MSNBC is Countdown. Everything else sucks! I would watch Maddow if she came on after Countdown but she doesn't. Glad to see they stopped giving Tucker Carlson welfare checks, if I performed as poorly and Scarborough, you, and Carlson at my job I would have been fired a long time ago. Nothing like a good ole boy club...the oldest affirmative action program in America.

[lovethesinner]

Dan, I say this with all due respect because you've done some good work, but... the show is lame. There's nothing worth watching. The moment I see Pat Buchanan I change channels. (what's the deal, is he going broke behind that xenophobic tome he penned for the KKK?)

Here's a show worth watching: a round table of alternating regulars (like the Chris Matthews Show on the weekends) who can speak without yelling:

Rachael Maddow (really it should be her show, but I know management has a problem with women who don't look like they'd show up on "client 9's" credit card.)

Eugene Robinson

Peggy Noonan

Andrew Sullivan

Just anything but the "circle jerk" of guy's who suck all the air out of the room (Carlson, Scarborough, Buchanan)

How about Willie Geist doing a location show for the rest of the election? He could follow in his dad's creditable footsteps with a live pollitcal "On the Road". (you could give him a truck with a camera and a laptop and he could send it in.)

But, Dan... let's move on, shall we? That horse you keep beating... it's dead!

[Manx]

Any show titled "Verdict" demands at least a semblance of objectivity. Objectivity would be impossible if you include guests such as Pat ("Shut up") Buchanan. Buchanan is a Libertarian, white supremacist homophobe, who has a right to his own opinons but not a person who should be featured on a show supposedly not influenced by personal opinions or feelings.

[sconset]

Gee, I wrote an honest assessment of MSNBC and Dan's new show last evening and I was not abusive just very direct and frank. Yet, I have been censored. I could understand it if I had used profanity or had said something untrue but I did not--Huffpo has always prided itself in being fair and open, however, my comment never appeared.

I really don't care because I watch NOTHING on any of the NBC channels, whether it is CNBC, NBC, or MSNBC--I don't have to. This is not journalism by any stretch of the imagination and it shows in the ratings.

However, I am equally dismayed by the censorship on this so called "liberal" blog.

[Opus007]

I also LOVE Rachel Maddow!

[jinjinpinti]

Yep. Rachel Maddow ROCKS!