Aug. 26, 2005 | 5:03 p.m. ET

Hypocrisy over Holloway coverage (Dan Abrams)

What is it about the Natalee Holloway story that turns generally well-intentioned and intelligent media folks into raging hypocrites?  It‘s time for all of us to put up or shut up, so let me be clear from the outset. 

We cover this story a lot.  We also cover a lot of other stories.  Other shows cover it more than we do, but we cover it.  It is for you the viewer to decide how much of it you want.  But I think some of the others are panicked that the next time they‘re at some elite media party, they‘ll be scorned by their friends for having covered the story.  The latest self-loathing comes from CNN and ABC‘s “Good Morning America”.

“It‘s easy and it‘s brainless,” said CNN president Jonathan Klein in defense of sportscaster Bob Costas‘ refusal to fill in on “Larry King Live” when the producers wanted to cover the Holloway story.

I talked about this a bit after Anderson Cooper went after this show and others for covering the Holloway case while continuing to cover tabloid stories himself.  Look, there‘s no question in terms of international significance or in accessing what is truly newsworthy.  In the old school sense of the term, there is no way to justify covering the Aruba story.

Yet CNN makes all sorts of excuses.  Well, sometimes it may be newsworthy or Larry King chooses his own topics.  You can‘t have it both ways.  What about Bob Costas, long one of my favorite sportscasters? What did he think when he agreed to fill in for Larry King for four weeks?  Did he think they‘d cover the healthcare debate ever? 

Larry interviews old school celebrities, survivors of weird stuff, newsmakers on occasion, but often covers tabloid stories.  I‘m not criticizing the show.  It‘s a successful, highly-rated interview show.  King is a legend.  I respect the man, but that‘s what they do.

Then on “Good Morning America” Thursday, correspondent Heather Cabot reported that NBC was hauled into court after obtaining video of suspect Joran van der Sloot behind bars.  She turned it into a broader piece about media coverage and concluded saying, “Many media outlets including this one devoted considerable air time to this story and perhaps this latest story will help stem this feverish coverage.”

They need Aruban court-provided aspirin to bring down their fever?  Is this some epidemic beyond their control?  Why can‘t these other networks just be honest with the viewers? 
It‘s an interesting story.  Many people are fascinated.  Many of us have come to feel for the Holloway family, to feel like we have a personal stake in the outcome. 

Others who cover it more than we do have tried to make insincere arguments about why the case is a crucial lesson in crime solving and international justice, but come on, that‘s nonsense.  It‘s a fascinating crime story. 

Look, I have no problem with those who frown on the amount of coverage this story has received.  I get it.  But to use a metaphor, if you‘re wearing leather, you can‘t also claim to be upset that the cow has been killed.

What do you think?  Drop me a line at

Aug. 24, 2005 | 3:57 p.m. ET

Certain juries do disservice (Dan Abrams)

In extremely complex and emotional cases, certain juries can sometimes do the rest of us a disservice.  The latest example: a $253-million verdict out of Texas against pharmaceutical giant Merck.  It was the first case to go to trial over the drug Vioxx.  It sets a dangerous precedent.  Not because Merck has clean hands and not because the plaintiff isn’t sympathetic, but it seems the evidence just doesn’t warrant this kind of payout and the jurors’ own comments prove the point.

Robert Ernst died of a heart arrhythmia at the age of 59 while taking Vioxx.  It seems clear Merck could have done more to address potential heart dangers associated with the drug.  That’s the easy part.  The question jurors seemed to ignore, more importantly, is whether or not Vioxx caused Mr. Ernst’s death. 

According to Monday’s Wall Street Journal, “Jurors who voted against Merck said much of the science sailed over their heads.”  One juror even compared Merck’s defense to the teacher in Charlie Brown who inaudibly says, “WAWAWA.”  It seems the possibility that the drug was responsible was enough, but the medical community is still debating whether Vioxx’s benefits outweigh the potential risks.  While the doctors research and investigate, trial lawyers aren’t waiting for the answer.  They’re taking the case to juries like the one in Angleton, Texas that voted 10-2 against Merck. 

But it sure looks like at least some jurors are more concerned with the way witnesses answered questions rather than what they actually said.  One juror even said it was “an admission of guilt that certain senior Merck officials testified via videotape rather than in person.”  Look, it sounds like Merck needs to find some new lawyers, but I don’t want lawyering to determine how much the rest of us pay for drugs or to affect how vigorously these companies search to find new ones. 

It seems clear Merck should have to pay.  They ignored potential risks, should have studied the drug more thoroughly and should not be permitted to simply rely on the small print on a label.  Maybe a fine is appropriate.  And anyone who can demonstrate the drug caused harm should be compensated.  But if this jury couldn’t say that the drug was a cause in Mr. Ernst’s death and the FDA can’t even definitively say it should be taken off the market, then how does that translate into a $253-million verdict for one family?

E-mail:

Aug. 18, 2005 | 3:34 p.m. ET

Sean Kimerling Foundation (Dan Abrams)

Yesterday, I attended a charity golf tournament in Long Island.  That charity is named after a guy I never knew, but who makes me appreciate my life every day.  His name was Sean Kimerling. 

In 2003, Sean was 37 — a month younger than me.  A sportscaster in New York, a single athletic healthy guy who loved his work and his family, much like me.  We even had the same agent.  The similarities between our lives are striking.  Some have even said that we kind of look alike.  I know if I had known him, that we would have been friends. 

It turns out, Sean and I were also treated for testicular cancer at the same time at the same hospital.  Sean died two days after I went back to work.  He had caught the disease too late.  It had spread throughout his body.  I remember seeing his picture in the paper and saying to myself wow that could have been me.  I would like to think if things had come out differently that Sean would be doing his show from the Dan Abrams Charitable Foundation event somewhere in the country. 

The Sean Kimerling Foundation is committed to educating young men about testicular cancer.  It’s almost always curable if caught early, and it is the most common cancer among young men, ages 15 to 40.  The key is self-exams.  Going to your doctor if you find anything that feels out of the ordinary.  Sean had another common symptom and that was constant and unexplained back pain.  I overcame the disease in private.  Never intended on discussing it until I saw Sean‘s story and realized I owed it to Sean and to myself to do what I could to spread the word. 

I still do so reluctantly.  But after I went public last year, I received a number of e-mails, correspondence from people who said that seeing my story helped saved a life, either theirs or their sons.  They either went to see their doctors over what they had thought was probably nothing or convinced them to check themselves out.  I don’t need any more encouragement than that.  That’s why I went to on a golf course in Long Island, to help promote the Sean Kimerling Foundation in the hope that more men who contract the disease will be as lucky as I was and catch it early.  So they, like me, can say not only did I beat the cancer, that it’s had no long-term impact on my life or the quality of it. 

For more information about the foundation, log on to their Web site.  It's Seankimerling.org or call 877-609-2690, ex 5.

E-mail:

Aug. 12, 2005 | 8:32 p.m. ET

Take a 360 yourself (Dan Abrams)

I love it when media folks try to jump on the journalistic high horse, critiquing others for doing something they do at their own network?

You see last night my friend Anderson Cooper over at CNN criticized his "cable competitors" for the "downright ridiculous" coverage of the Natalee Holloway case. He played a clip from this show, among others, and said he will leave it to the "other guys" to follow the case.

It sounds like a legitimate gripe.  I am still surprised by how much interest there is in this story.  The problem?  The horse he is riding, well, it's not exactly a thoroughbred. You see, before he starts attacking the other guys, he might want to consider an inter-office memo.  Doesn't Larry King work for CNN? I sure thought he did.  And what about Nancy Grace?  I guess not.  Because if they did, I am certain he would have started his crusade by convincing CNN brass to stop them from regularly covering the story.  He would fight to keep it off CNN's morning show as well.

But at least Anderson's show is only covering the most important of stories, right? I mean that sort of holier-than-thou attitude must come from a host devoting his precious hour exclusively to domestic policy initiatives and the threat of nuclear proliferation?  I guess he is — if you consider the disappearance of the newlywed on a cruise ship in Turkey, women who love killers and the Jackson jurors the most important stories of the day.  Those are just a few of the stories he covered this week.

In terms of its impact on every day Americans, there is no way to justify the amount of coverage the Holloway case has received.  Others defend the exposure, saying it’s an important lesson in evidence gathering.  Nonsense.  It’s just a fascinating criminal investigation and many have come to feel for the Holloway family.

But if you are going to start throwing stones at those of us who do cover it, you better make sure your own house is at least made of plexi-glass.  If Jim Lehrer, journalism professors, or anyone else who doesn't regularly cover crime stories criticizes the amount of coverage, I'll listen.  But Anderson, you might want to take a 360-degree look around your own house and clean it up, before telling us which disinfectant we should use in our kitchen.

E-mail:

Aug. 9, 2005 |  3:50 p.m. ET

Peter Jennings' legacy (Dan Abrams)

The news that ABC newsman Peter Jennings died of lung cancer obviously came as a shock to everyone that he has touched throughout his career. As someone who has overcome cancer myself, I’d like to take a different look back and tell you about the man behind his tremendous professional successes. As a friend at ABC said to me today, "I would think he would have wanted to be known for more than just that."

Born in Canada, he held off on becoming an American citizen, despite the professional advantages. He believed that his mother Elizabeth, an ardent Canadian nationalist, would not approve.

Known for this incredible commitment to family, colleagues say he kept a picture of his father Charles, the first anchor of a nightly news show in Canada, prominently displayed in his office.

When he finally became an American citizen in 2003, he did so quietly, passing his citizenship test with a perfect score. When asked whether he did so to placate his critics, he responded, "My decision to do this has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with my profession. It has everything to do with my family."

While he seemed to be the ultimate impassionate observer on the television screen, off camera, he made personal calls to acquaintances and colleagues when they’d lost loved ones. Ted Koppel, his colleague at ABC said Jennings was, "surprisingly sentimental."

The sentimental feeling is reflected on the ABC message board as one viewer wrote, "The evening news without Peter Jennings would mean dinner without her favorite guest. We will keep your reservation open at our dinner table, as long as it takes."

Keep the e-mails coming to

Aug. 4, 2005 |  8:37 p.m. ET

Your rebuttal (Dan Abrams)

I've had my say, now it's time for your rebuttal...

The mother of missing Alabama teen Natalee Holloway spoke to friends of Natalee's who were with her in Aruba.  She says Natalee probably thought she was getting in a cab after drinking at a local bar.  Many of you have questions.

Leslie Jesinkey in South Carolina writes: "My heart goes out to Beth Holloway and the great job she is doing. However, I don't understand why Natalee was waving to her friends and getting in a 'cab' by herself. Why wasn't she getting in a 'cab' with her friends?"

Also the other night, a 42-year-old catholic school English teacher from suburban Albany, New York, has been accused of having sex with one of her 16-year-old students.  And three other boys say she slept with them too, but they were 17 -- old enough to consent.

Leo Walls in Fort Worth, Texas: "Dan, there you go again. Here is a 40-year-old woman having sex with 17-year-old boys and they are considered minors, can't buy cigs or booze. You said not all 17-year-old boys are innocent. Does the same go for 17-year-old girls?"

Uh, yes. 

Keep the e-mails coming to

July 27, 2005 |  6:40 p.m. ET

MSNBC Cable MSNBC Cable's LIsa Daniels

I've had my say, it's time for your rebuttal.

On Monday, we told you attorneys for suspects in the Natalee Holloway case were in court trying to block prosecutors from opening their files to the FBI.  But, the Aruban government actually requested the FBI’s assistance in the case.

Christopher in Torrance, California writes: “I don't see what your issue is with the FBI going to Aruba to help in the investigation. Mexico is an independent nation, should we not cooperate with their authorities? Same with many countries around the world... Get a grip!"

No Christopher. I suggest you get a grip. Better yet, get a VCR and play back the show from the other day.  I said it's insane that we are sending the FBI to work on a single missing person's case in a different country.

Yes, I feel so sorry for Natalee's family. But this is outrageous. I think the FBI agents should be working on cases here in the United States or cases affecting more than one person. Do you want the U.S. Army involved too?

From Fort Walton Beach, Florida, Frank Wood: "Would you like the FBI to be involved if your child was missing and no information was coming forth from those in charge? I think you would."

You bet I would because I would be personally involved in that case.  I would want you, Frank, to be helping me find my daughter.  I would want all businesses closed until I found my daughter.  I'd want the CIA, FBI and United States government to help find my daughter.

But there's a big difference between what's right for our society and what one family wants. That's my point.

In the show and on Sidebar, I also took issue with a proposed ban in New Jersey on driving while smoking.  The sponsors claim it's a safety issue.  I said I don't buy it.  The truth is it looks to me that they are trying to bother smokers once again.

Larry Wernet in Casa Grande, Arizona agrees: "I couldn't agree with you more.  It is just feel good legislation. I don't think it could be enforced.  And there are more important problems to worry about."

But others didn't agree, like Landy Davis in Tampa, Florida: "How many citizens of New Jersey have died this year at the hands of a terrorist or in war? Now ask, how many have died driving automobiles and from cigarette related diseases? Confronting the real dangers to Americans makes perfect sense."

Landy, the issue was not about the dangers of smoking. It was about smoking being a distraction while driving.  If you want to talk about smoking dangers, fine.  But that's not what the sponsor of the bill is claiming the proposal is about. That's my beef.

E-mail me at

July 27, 2005 |  3:46 p.m. ET

Real New Jersey issues up in smoke (Lisa Daniels)

MSNBC Cable MSNBC Cable's LIsa Daniels

If you're a smoker, it's hard to find a place to enjoy a cigarette or a cigar these days.  Smoking in your office building, that's a no-no.  Employees need to step outside to get their nicotine fix.  In restaurants or bars, forget it.  Most major cities have banned it already or are currently working on banning it now.  On planes?  No.  On trains?  No.  But in your cars?  Well right now, yes, but it may be illegal in New Jersey if some local lawmakers have their way. 

New Jersey Assemblyman John McKeon, whose father died of emphysema, wants the state to ban smoking while driving.  He says it's a safety issue.  He cites an AAA study that shows smoking while driving can cause accidents.  He wants a $250 fine for people caught smoking while driving. 

But smokers in New Jersey are not buying it.  They claim it's just another example of big brother overstepping his boundaries when it comes to smokers. 

Here's the thing.  I agree.  I don't like smoke.  I can't stand it.   I don't even like being around smokers.  But personally, I think this proposal is absolutely ridiculous.  Telling people they can't smoke in their own cars?  That's one step away from telling them they can't smoke in their own homes.  What's next?  I can't sing in my car because it's going to distract me?  I can't talk to my kids in the back seat because they'll distract me?  I can think of so many other things the state of New Jersey should be dealing with before they tackle the issue of people smoking in their own cars.  How about taxes?  What about potholes?  Let's start there. 

On the scale of distractions while driving, smoking really is not my biggest concern.  I've seen people eating bowls of cereal while driving.  I've seen people reading the Wall Street Journal.  I've seen people putting on lipstick and mascara while making a right turn.  In my view, John McKeon and his co-sponsors have gone way too far with this proposal and I'm guessing it might be a personal issue. 

This is a guess — McKeon's dad died of emphysema.  Does he have an issue with driving distractions or does he have a beef with smoking in general? 

More importantly, I resent that the New Jersey Assembly is wasting our time discussing this when child molesters continue to prey on kids like Samantha Runnion and our country is at war.  Come on.  Get with the program.  Start talking about issues that matter.

E-mail:

July 25, 2005 | 8:55 p.m. ET

Story of selfless heroism (Dan Abrams)

I want to tell you about Private Stephen Tschiderer, a 20-year-old Army medic of the 265th Brigade Combat team.  While on patrol in Baghdad on July 2, insurgent snipers stalked the soldier by videotaping him from a nearby van.  This footage would later prove Tschiderer’s valor.

Within seconds of walking away from his Hummer, he was shot in the chest above the heart. Tschiderer goes down - but immediately pops back up, fires back, and runs back behind the Hummer. From behind the Hummer, he signals the snipers’ hiding spot to his unit.

The 265th disabled the insurgents — including the sniper, who attempted to flee from the location on foot. Following a blood trail, U.S. soldiers located the wounded sniper and took him into custody.

While this is an amazing story on its own, after being shot by the sniper, Tschiderer acted like a true American by providing the man who had just tried to kill him with medical treatment.   

Tschiderer wrote in an email to his mom back at home: “Treating the man who shot me didn’t really sink in until after. At the time, I just did my job and didn’t think about it too much.”

This is another example of the type of story the media needs to keep talking about — the selfless heroism of the American servicemen and women.

Happily, Tschiderer is expected to make a full recovery, thanks to the body armor he was wearing.

E-mail me at

July 22, 2005 |  7:25 p.m. ET

T'anks Bush (Dan Abrams)

The attorney general of California is learning an important lesson this week. If you want to cheer up the drab walls of your office building with a little art, perhaps you should ask kindergarteners for their best finger paintings or enlist a struggling artist. Whatever you do, don’t ask lawyers — or you might get something a bit more controversial.

The piece in question is called "T’anks to Mr. Bush," and depicts a star-spangled map of the United States flushed down a toilet. Needless to say, it caused quite a stir. It’s part of an exhibit at the State Department of Justice.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked California Lawyers for the Arts to submit paintings. Now, some conservative commentators and the state Republican Party are demanding that Lockyer — a Republican — remove the painting.

A state party spokeswoman says the painting is "blatantly offensive to people who think that America does not belong in the toilet" and should, therefore, not be displayed in a state building.

But Lockyer, who has an anti-censorship poster hanging in his office, is refusing demands to remove it. His communications staff says he likes that it makes a point a lot of people disagree with.

Though he is right that it does not mean you endorse an artist just because his work is permitted to be shown, I’m much more concerned about the quality of the art.

The artist, California attorney Stephen Pearcy, says it only took 20 minutes to make.

Well, how about a painting of President Bush with donkey ears? Or how about a pig nose on former President Clinton? Would those also have to be removed? Criticize the painter if you want, just don’t hire him as your lawyer. This is an issue for people with too much time on their hands.

E-mail me your thoughts at

MORE FROM ABRAMS REPORT

Abrams Report Section Front

Terrorist plot thwarted Video: Terrorist plot thwarted (part 2) Video: "CSI" tactics in a Texas murder Video: Who gets Lay’s money? (part 1) Video: Who gets Lay’s money? (part 2) Settlement in cruise disappearance (part 1) Settlement in cruise disappearance (part 2) Video: Coca-Cola’s secrets stolen Video: Michael Jackson back in court Video: Amber Frey gets married Abrams Report Section Front   Add Abrams Report headlines to your news reader: