Opinion: Gibson vs. Abrams…and visa versa…
John Gibson rakes Dan Abrams over the coals over Don Imus. Video here.
Backstory: Yesterday Abrams was on Scarborough Country and chastized Gibson for being in a glass house as far as racist remarks go. However as Johnny Dollar writes, it was a red herring because Gibson never said what Abrams and Media Matters claimed what he said.
Two wrongs don’t make a right: So Gibson would be right to be non-plussed with Abrams mischaracterizing his comments and in my opinion would have every reason in the world to return Abrams fire because Abrams was wrong. But what does Gibson do? He leads off his piece with some mis-direction of his own by claiming that MSNBC is blaming FNC for the Imus mess. Transcript here.
Last night on MSNBC the general manager of that operation, Dan Abrams, was guest hosting one of their shows and was dealing with the Imus dustup. Amazingly, Abrams blamed FOX for his Imus problem.
Abrams said nothing of the kind. Abrams said FNC’s criticisms should be discounted because according to Abrams they have ulterior motives and this is just the latest in a series of attacks by FNC talent on the NBC network. TVNewser has video here.
What I think: As with most things that are disputed, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The majority of FNC’s coverage of the Imus mess that I’ve seen was down the middle. But Gibson with his “MSNBC is blaming FNC” non-sequitur, Brian Kilmeade saying incorrectly that Imus is promoted nonstop on MSNBC (I haven’t seen an Imus promo on MSNBC in years…the majority of MSNBC’s on air promotional resources are spent on its primetime offerings and its political coverage), and Bill O’Reilly with his over the top “NBC peddles hate every single day” comments (video of both here) give in my opinion some justification to Abrams’ dismissals of FNC’s criticisms.
What isn’t in dispute in my opinion is that Imus should have been dropped from MSNBC a long time ago. How many times has he caused trouble for the network? How many times has he attacked its talent and network hierarchy? People point to what happened to Michael Savage and how quickly he got dropped and wonder why MSNBC sticks with Imus. It’s a legitimate question in my book.
How exactly did John Gibson NOT say that white people should “make more babies” because in 25 years the majority population will be Hispanic?
Say what you will about Media Matters, but they have video of him saying it…
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120006
Comment by Keyser Soze — April 10, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
Because he didn’t say “white people” should make more babies. And he didn’t say “because” the population would be majority Hispanic. He said that EVERYONE should have more babies. Population replacement. It was Media Matters who used the trickery of taking something from one part of the story (Hispanic birth rate) and splicing it in to make it LOOK LIKE he was saying that was the purpose of “more babies”. When in fact he was talking about population growth. He didn’t ask “White people” to make more babies. He asked AMERICANS (fyi that constitutes more than just “white people”) to make more babies.
Comment by johnny dollar — April 10, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
FNC’s coverage down the middle…it aint down the middle on anything! the fnc headspinners are always out to get people. theyve been on nbc’s case for months..rosie’s for months…they take things overboard! heck at one time they were harpin on the AP…The AP a news organization in which fnc gets some of its stories from. ms..or anybody shouldnt give any of the headspinners on fnc the time of day.
Comment by Me — April 10, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
“…and wonder why MSNBC sticks with Imus”
I always assumed it’s because a) he’s cheap (to produce, anyways) and b) he brings in the ratings. It’s pretty obvious MSNBC doesn’t care about putting on QUALITY programming in the AM anyways (looking at their dayside coverage as well)…so I guess they’ll take the jabs at the network from Imus in exchange for low-cost trash that pulls in the demo.
Comment by Anonymous — April 10, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
I lost All respect for Dan Abrams. Dan is a General Manager for MSNBC. Dan, do your job and manage already!
Comment by Noelle — April 10, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
It’s pretty obvious MSNBC doesn’t care about putting on QUALITY programming in the AM
Or in the evening either - why produce live news when you can get better ratings with reruns of trash-docs.
Comment by Arthur — April 10, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
I wanted to add one more thing.
Why worry about what FOX, Gibson, Brian K. and Bill O. have to say? The focus needs to be on the young women that Imus insulted.
Why isn’t Dan Abrams commenting on what Al Roker of NBC had to say about Imus (he wants Imus fired!)?
Dan is just trying to divert the story. There is time and place for everything Dan, this is NOT the time.
Comment by Noelle — April 10, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Sure Fox is fighting back after being pounded by MSNBC for months. That is an whole different story than this Imus thing, Fox did not make him say what he said. I saw five minutes of Hannity and he said he did not like Imus but that he had apologized and did NOT deserve to loose his job. Then when I watched Abrams he was showing that same clip of Hannity with NO SOUND as he bashed Fox for “making everything political”. Hello, Dan remember “MACACA” on MSNBC EVERY FIVE MINUTES for weeks. Dan Abrams did himself and MSNBC a GREAT deal of harm last night. As I said earlier — Dan came across like - I know what Imus said was wrong, but LET ME TELL YOU HOW BAD OTHERS ARE FOR TALKING ABOUT IT, I WILL BASH FOX NEWS, ALL OF OUR VIEWERS WILL AGREE AND FORGET ABOUT THE REAL STORY. Dan looked awful, his eyes looked as if he had lost sleep, his demeaner was as if he had five too many cups of coffee or a few cocktails before he come on. He was a mess — all thoughout the show he was just plain “GOOFY” acting. His attempt to “DEFLECT” this off of MSNBC was lame.
Comment by Aunt Mary — April 10, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Me, have you even seen any coverage? You talked about none. All you talked about was how you “feel” about FNC, and generalizations (which you think make sense)… but nothing actually about this story.
I saw Hannity and Colmes last night, when they were talking about this. Great segment… but you can’t tell where Hannity or Colmes really stood on this. Hannity doesn’t like Imus, but thinks he has free speech, and Sharpton is making a big deal out of this for his own reasons. Colmes knows Imus and thinks he’s a good guy, and that after so many apologies, shouldn’t he be forgiven? Both agreed that the statements were awful and should never have been made.
Me, if you know what you’re talking about, why don’t you let the rest of us know.
Comment by ImNotBlue — April 10, 2007 @ 9:36 pm