I strongly disagree with him on most issues, but we need journalists like Piers Morgan doing what they do.
Before we embark on this unique defence of Piers Morgan, let me state clearly: this is not about some widespread conspiracy against ‘free speech’. It is purely a defence of Piers Morgan, solely regarding the events that led to him to be driven out of Good Morning Britain. That’s it.
I also want to make clear that it is obvious he has a personal vendetta against Meghan Markle because she didn’t give him a second date (or something like that) which is clouding his judgment. More importantly however, his diehard defence of the British monarchy (an institution rooted in colonialism and racism, which has the friend of a convicted paedophile, wanted by the FBI for questioning, in line for the throne), is curious. He is a talented guy with a massive following, and he could use that to defend people who actually need and deserve defending.
In any case, here goes my diehard defence of the apparently indefensible.
First of all, Piers Morgan doesn’t believe everything he says; it just makes for good television. Last Monday and Tuesday’s GMB saw the show’s highest ever ratings (1.29 million viewers on Tuesday alone), beating BBC Breakfast for the first time. What’s more, since Morgan left, the show has seen a 1/3 decline in viewership. Coincidence? No, because television is about entertainment, not pandering to mainstream opinion. And although some will have been uncomfortable with what was said, Monday and Tuesday’s shows were fun to watch (come on, the clash with Dr Shola was great drama). So, I would urge everyone to take Tuesday’s ‘walk out’, and everything else Piers said, not as ‘staged’ per se, but perhaps as exaggerated and improvised to such an extent so as to (successfully) boost the show’s viewership.
Remember, GMB is a unique news show precisely because it mixes current affairs with entertaining its viewers. In a world where so much apathy exists regarding news and politics, these are the kinds of shows that boost interest. And sometimes, entertainment comes at the price of offending a select few. Shy of crossing some red lines, so what?
But people like Piers Morgan don’t just serve to entertain. Imagine for a second if after the Oprah interview, every single journalist on the planet expressed sympathy with Meghan, believed every single thing she said, and offered no scrutiny. What kind of world would this be? It would be one where Meghan’s surname was Corleone.
Do I have any reason to believe Meghan Markle lied about anything? No, but it’s completely crazy to think that she couldn’t have. After all, there should be questions asked when the Royal Family are effectively accused of racism, but no detail or further explanation whatsoever is given. And frankly, the fact is that Harry and Meghan are public figures who have profited dearly off their former roles and are now living a life of the utmost luxury. They decided to speak out: they should not be immune to criticism from journalists any more than any other public figure after a voluntary interview (especially since Oprah didn’t exactly play hardball on her neighbours).
Think of the media’s job in this case as that of a team of detectives interrogating someone who accuses someone else of a crime. It should never be assumed that they are 100% telling the truth. Motives need to be questioned, and accounts need to be scrutinised, before a conclusion is established. Having one detective out of many insist they are lying (even if they turn out to be wrong) is useful; it keeps the rest from simply assuming that this person isn’t capable of lying. A lot of the time, this would result in the truth not being established.
I don’t think Harry or Meghan lied about anything in that interview or had any reason to. But it’s always better to have some people believe that they did, rather than a universal assumption being adopted that nothing Meghan Markle says can possibly be a lie.
There must be a debate to allow people to form their own opinions. In my view, Piers lost that debate badly and looked like an idiot, but on another occasion, his blind stubbornness may have helped us to see things we otherwise wouldn’t have.
Finally, I’d like to address the claim that calling someone a liar who admitted to having suicidal thoughts is crossing a red line, for which Piers should be cancelled. The problem with this is that it mistakes the target of his attack as the credibility of ill mental health itself, rather than just Meghan Markle. The two are not the same thing. Since making those comments, Piers has clarified that he takes mental health extremely seriously, it’s just that he specifically doesn’t believe what Meghan Markle says generally. Do I agree with him? No, but we don’t fire people for refusing to believe what one celebrity said in an interview conducted by one of her best friends.
Ultimately, journalism would be very boring without provocateurs like Piers Morgan. Does he make a fool of himself often? Yes. Would the world be a nightmare if all journalists were like him? Yes. But that’s the point: because they are hard to come by, journalists like Piers Morgan are useful. They are funny to watch, and they keep us from simply accepting mainstream opinion without challenging it, something which always results in having more informed opinions.
Image: Piers Morgan via Flickr
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Love him or hate him, Britain needs Piers Morgan
I strongly disagree with him on most issues, but we need journalists like Piers Morgan doing what they do.
Before we embark on this unique defence of Piers Morgan, let me state clearly: this is not about some widespread conspiracy against ‘free speech’. It is purely a defence of Piers Morgan, solely regarding the events that led to him to be driven out of Good Morning Britain. That’s it.
I also want to make clear that it is obvious he has a personal vendetta against Meghan Markle because she didn’t give him a second date (or something like that) which is clouding his judgment. More importantly however, his diehard defence of the British monarchy (an institution rooted in colonialism and racism, which has the friend of a convicted paedophile, wanted by the FBI for questioning, in line for the throne), is curious. He is a talented guy with a massive following, and he could use that to defend people who actually need and deserve defending.
In any case, here goes my diehard defence of the apparently indefensible.
First of all, Piers Morgan doesn’t believe everything he says; it just makes for good television. Last Monday and Tuesday’s GMB saw the show’s highest ever ratings (1.29 million viewers on Tuesday alone), beating BBC Breakfast for the first time. What’s more, since Morgan left, the show has seen a 1/3 decline in viewership. Coincidence? No, because television is about entertainment, not pandering to mainstream opinion. And although some will have been uncomfortable with what was said, Monday and Tuesday’s shows were fun to watch (come on, the clash with Dr Shola was great drama). So, I would urge everyone to take Tuesday’s ‘walk out’, and everything else Piers said, not as ‘staged’ per se, but perhaps as exaggerated and improvised to such an extent so as to (successfully) boost the show’s viewership.
Remember, GMB is a unique news show precisely because it mixes current affairs with entertaining its viewers. In a world where so much apathy exists regarding news and politics, these are the kinds of shows that boost interest. And sometimes, entertainment comes at the price of offending a select few. Shy of crossing some red lines, so what?
But people like Piers Morgan don’t just serve to entertain. Imagine for a second if after the Oprah interview, every single journalist on the planet expressed sympathy with Meghan, believed every single thing she said, and offered no scrutiny. What kind of world would this be? It would be one where Meghan’s surname was Corleone.
Do I have any reason to believe Meghan Markle lied about anything? No, but it’s completely crazy to think that she couldn’t have. After all, there should be questions asked when the Royal Family are effectively accused of racism, but no detail or further explanation whatsoever is given. And frankly, the fact is that Harry and Meghan are public figures who have profited dearly off their former roles and are now living a life of the utmost luxury. They decided to speak out: they should not be immune to criticism from journalists any more than any other public figure after a voluntary interview (especially since Oprah didn’t exactly play hardball on her neighbours).
Think of the media’s job in this case as that of a team of detectives interrogating someone who accuses someone else of a crime. It should never be assumed that they are 100% telling the truth. Motives need to be questioned, and accounts need to be scrutinised, before a conclusion is established. Having one detective out of many insist they are lying (even if they turn out to be wrong) is useful; it keeps the rest from simply assuming that this person isn’t capable of lying. A lot of the time, this would result in the truth not being established.
I don’t think Harry or Meghan lied about anything in that interview or had any reason to. But it’s always better to have some people believe that they did, rather than a universal assumption being adopted that nothing Meghan Markle says can possibly be a lie.
There must be a debate to allow people to form their own opinions. In my view, Piers lost that debate badly and looked like an idiot, but on another occasion, his blind stubbornness may have helped us to see things we otherwise wouldn’t have.
Finally, I’d like to address the claim that calling someone a liar who admitted to having suicidal thoughts is crossing a red line, for which Piers should be cancelled. The problem with this is that it mistakes the target of his attack as the credibility of ill mental health itself, rather than just Meghan Markle. The two are not the same thing. Since making those comments, Piers has clarified that he takes mental health extremely seriously, it’s just that he specifically doesn’t believe what Meghan Markle says generally. Do I agree with him? No, but we don’t fire people for refusing to believe what one celebrity said in an interview conducted by one of her best friends.
Ultimately, journalism would be very boring without provocateurs like Piers Morgan. Does he make a fool of himself often? Yes. Would the world be a nightmare if all journalists were like him? Yes. But that’s the point: because they are hard to come by, journalists like Piers Morgan are useful. They are funny to watch, and they keep us from simply accepting mainstream opinion without challenging it, something which always results in having more informed opinions.
Image: Piers Morgan via Flickr
Share this:
Like this:
Related