Piers Morgan said his final goodbye to fans of his show on March 28. He hosted the Cable News Network (CNN) program for three years, following the departure of Larry King. Some people will probably miss him; many others will not. The fact is that the former commentator lost his show because of his pompous, self-righteous loud-mouthed attitude, and obsession with guns in the United States. The British expat shot himself in the foot with his loaded rhetoric, and irritating demeanor; in short, he acted like a stereotypical American tourist.
Morgan will almost undoubtedly be remembered most for his zealous rants about guns and gun control. He regularly feuded with his opponents over the subject, often launching into yelling and name calling. This kind of immature behavior led guests such as Ben Shapiro to describe him as a bully. New York State Senator Greg Ball told the British interviewer that he “got paid for being a jerk.” The journalist himself commented that he might be known as the guy at a local bar who drones on about a single subject. Erik Wemple of the Washington Post echoed the “jerk” statement. Writing in a column, he commented “….There are a couple of problems with being a jerk…allure defaults to the host and his personality….” Personality was definitely not the British commentator’s greatest tool.
While Morgan was most known for taking shots at conservative issues, voices in left leaning media shared relief at the British host’s resignation. New York Times media and culture columnist David Carr, himself not an obvious conservative, stated that the English host at times didn’t seem to like America very much. Morgan would regularly mouth off and compare the United States to the UK and other Commonwealth countries in a very negative light; he often did so with loaded questions and ad hominem attacks against guests with varying opinions. The result, as Carr points out, is a show with very poor ratings; it lagged behind commentators at right-leaning Fox News and Left-leaning MSNBC alike. CNN for its part, seems to aspire to the via media.
Many Americans came to compare Morgan to King George III, and regularly referred to him as a “Red Coat” on youtube. Like the 18th Century monarch, The pugnacious Englishman seemed to peer down his nose at the unruly Americans and wonder what it would take to civilize the local rustics. As Carr again points out well, the commentator who originally hails from East Sussex may have done well to remember that the right to bear arms was codified in the Constitution because Britain was trying to disarm the people of the 13 colonies.
While the guns issue was a major source of debate for the former CNN commentator, it was not the only one. Morgan had equally abrasive dialogues with different kinds of guests. He argued with former president Ronald Reagan’s son, Michael, about why the U.S. should sanction gay marriage. He also challenged Penn Gillette of Penn and Teller fame, about the latter’s outspoken, and at times aggressive atheism; in spite support of gay marriage, Morgan claims to be a Roman Catholic.
Carr relayed a phone call between him and his European counterpart. The former CNN host stated “Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it.” He seems to at least have a load of understanding here. He may have had a shot of staying with CNN’s regular prime time programming. However to do so, Morgan would have to take a strong look at himself through a common American’s eyes. Instead, he chose to shoot off his mouth like a Midwestern kid’s pellet gun that he seems to so hate.
Commentary by Ian Erickson
Sources:
Conservative Videos
New York Times
Washington Post
Discover more from Guardian Liberty Voice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
4 Responses
Part 2
The WHO released a study that states 3.3 million people die every year from alcohol abuse around the world. If we scale report to say that the US accounts for five percent of that due the country’s percentage of world population, 165 million Americans die from liquor; in reality it’s probably higher, thanks to our large consumption of booze. This is 15 times the number of people who die tragically from gun shots. Meanwhile, more die from fists, knives, and clubs than from being shot by hunting rifles and shotguns; yet, no one pushes banning knives, baseball bats, or fists. .
I will admit that gun ownership does not necessarily cause a reduction of crime as some of my fellow gun owners will tell you. The fact is that if you look across global statistics for the last few decades, and more importantly many countries rather than just two or three, you will see that legal gun ownership has very little if any direct impact on violent crime levels.
Government does not need to worry about what people HAVE; it needs to concern itself with what people DO. That means prosecute to the full extent of the law the murderer, and do it consistently. The day a person becomes a criminal for defending themselves in their own home, just because the ruling elite is uncomfortable with the manner people do it, we have cause to worry.
Before you or someone else writes me off as a reactionary right-winger, I would like to finish by quoting arguably the most prolific leftist author of the 20th century, George Orwell:
“The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
——— “Don’t Let Colonel Blimp Ruin the Home Guard” Evening Standard January 8, 1941
Part 1
responding to your post. I have not been writing much, and have been away from Guardian, and missed your response. I will try to answer as best I can.
As far as “A society that provides for its population will provide a more stable and peaceful population,” I am not 100 percent sure what you mean. If you are referring to things like universal healthcare, those types of instituted social services will not help this situation, because we already have that kind of aid, and it is not what these scumbags who shoot people care about anyway. If you are talking about personal concern for our neighbor, I may be a bit more empathetic to that claim, but again, if you live in the US, you will see that volunteer aid and counseling are everywhere for people who need it.
Piers was not anti-AR15, and he let it slip a few times that that he would like to get rid of all guns in the US. If AR-15s were not around, he would be bitching about the Mossberg 12 gauge. The ar 15 is not a machine gun despite what Morgan would tell you; it looks like one, and for that reason I too am not enamored with its mass marketing, but its action is much more like a standard hunting rifle.
Guns are not the root of the problem. If they were, we would have had the same rate of shootings since our country began. Countries like the UK, with its strict gun laws would be safer than Serbia or Iceland, where legal gun ownership is much higher; yet they are safer places than his home country. Meanwhile countries like Mexico and Russia with stricter gun laws than Great Britain, have much more shootings and murder.
test
Pretty brave of Piers Morgan to enter sacred territory and not back down on asking the serious question about the necessity of guns, particularly AR 15 rifles and the like. It is long overdue to do something about out-of-control rampant gun ownership in the USA. Guns have become such a short-sighted societal crutch. Surely, in spite of the entrenched habit and economic benefit of gun sales (and income from overseas sale of weapons) Americans can look to experts in social fields to lead the way. I am sure there are some home grown experts or perhaps their influence is buried beneath all those gun lobbyists and fear mongers prostituting the second amendment. A society that provides for its population will provide a more stable and peaceful population. It is little wonder that the groundwork for violence is so evident and perpetuated by laws that allow weaponry in the pantry that belongs in a war zone.