Kudos to Dan Abrams for Amanpour Smackdown

Dan Abrams from MSNBC has given a very direct and firm criticism of the "God's Warriors" piece recently done by CNN's Christiane Amanpour. It has been some time since I gave kudos to anybody (conservative or liberal) and Dan Abrams deserves them. I am not quite sure of his motives, but the directness and clarity of the points he makes are quite at odds with the usual 'grayness' we have come to expect from the liberal media. The firmness of Abrams' rebuttal is nothing short of a smackdown of Amanpour.

I did not see the God's Warriors piece, but the overall theme, promotional segments and quotes I have seen after the fact have convinced me that it was quite abhorrent. The notion the modern day extremists from Islam, Judaism and Christianity are in any way equivalent is nowhere rooted in reality. Every religion has its nut cases, where some express their faith in violent and murderous ways. However, when comparing the occasional murderer of non-Islamic faiths to the volume and embracing of terrorist acts in the Muslim world; there is no comparison whatsoever. Yet Amanpour is not only putting them in the same ballpark, but on equal footing. Dan Abrams not only calls her on making them equivalent, but points out her shameless attempts at defending Islam to the point of painting them as victims. Here are some of Abrams' quotes:

He calls Amanpour's piece "a defense of Islamic fundamentalism and the worst type of moral relativism," and a "shameful advocacy masked as journalism".

"Christians and Jews, for example, who support Israel's strategy for self-defense are just as much God's warriors, according to Amanpour, as the Islamic radicals who blow themselves and others up in an effort to destroy the world as we know it."

"CNN should have called it what it was: a defense of Islamic fundamentalism and the worst type of moral relativism"

"She portrays Muslims as victims, while accusing evangelical Christians of playing the victim."

"...the Muslims as the victims, again, throughout this whole piece."

"This series was well-produced and successful, but also shameful advocacy masked as journalism."

Apparently Amanpour brought out the tired myth of Timothy McVeigh as a Christian terrorist. While Abrams does not correct the record on this falsehood, he does point out the falseness of Amanpour's claim that this fits the "warriors" theme because McVeigh was part of a militia. McVeigh 1) Never claimed to be a Christian 2) Claimed to be an agnostic. The fact that Amanpour has to scratch around and play loose with the truth in order to produce a Christian terrorist shows the depth of her bias.

While I praise his response I am not sure why Abrams came out so hard hitting on this. He seems passionate enough for his objection to be genuine. It could also be a business opportunity to take a jab at CNN as a competitor. He ends the piece with:

Well, I can tell you this, CNN is listening to this segment, so maybe they will hear you loud and clear on that and make up for what I think was really well done but ultimately shoddy journalism.

Combined with the fact that Abrams is the General Manager at MSNBC, this response could be a strong attempt to knock off a few points in the credibility of CNN. Nothing wrong with that in a competitive free market; especially when the criticism is spot-on. Whatever his motives, I recognize Dan Abrams today for doing a good job in this response. While Islamic terrorists enjoy hero status in much of the Muslim world, any terrorist act by a Jew or Christian would be strongly and universally denounced on the spot. There is no comparison or parallels to be drawn. Amanpour has done the world a disservice by making the claim that there is; and she deserved the smackdown delivered by Abrams.

(H/T Newsbusters.org - Brad Wilmouth)