No Filter: Piers Morgan Sounds Off on Trump, Biden, CNN's ‘Sneering,' and Meghan Markle
One great thing about talking to Piers Morgan: there is never a shortage of topics he is willing to share his opinion on.
From Joe Biden's cognitive decline to Donald Trump's media barbs, his issues with certain CNN reporters and celebrities like George Clooney to who hates Meghan Markle and Prince Harry more between the American and British public, Morgan is game to talk about anything, it seems.
That is a big reason why his YouTube show, 'Piers Morgan Uncensored,' has become one of the biggest politics and culture-focused programs since launching on the platform in early 2024, racking up 4 million subscribers.
His show also has an unrivaled knack for going viral on X and elsewhere. Two recent examples: Kanye West storming off mid-interview, and self-described 'unapologetic cultural commentator' Lilly Gaddis saying she uses the N-word 'quite frequently.' Morgan blasted her for the comment, and soon after, guest Marc Lamont Hill got riled up when the 'Uncensored' host dared her to say it, leading to another viral clip from the segment.
'I know a story when I see one. I know the potential for a story, and I know what the media is likely to get excited by,' Morgan told TheWrap during a lengthy interview last week.
He added: 'And I don't really see anybody else [in the media] quite doing it the way that I do it.'
That was a driving force behind the media veteran — who has worked for CNN, NBC, the BBC, and most recently, Fox News — deciding to break his deal with Rupert Murdoch to take control of 'Uncensored' earlier this year. He said the move has worked out brilliantly so far, with Morgan claiming his show is valued at $100 million already, based on one key investor.
Morgan believes 'Uncensored' can be worth much more than that, and he is not going to hang up if CNN or other potential investors come calling, he said, if the price for a slice of his operation is right. Long term, he said his goal is to build a business that mirrors Ben Shapiro's 'The Daily Wire,' where several opinionated personalities can thrive.
One thing he is certain of, though: Most legacy media outlets are dead, or at best, in the process of dying off. The old model does not work anymore.
'You've got to move where younger people in particular have moved. They want opinion. They want to see good debates. They want to hear all the sides of an argument and work out what to really think,' Morgan said. 'They don't want boring, they don't want stodgy.'
Morgan was not boring as he touched on the topics mentioned above, plus a few others — including what he thinks of Jake Tapper's recent book tour. Read the interview below:
TheWrap: What's been the trickiest or most challenging part, now that you do have everything under your control, of just running the show and keeping it humming?
Morgan: That's the easy part, because as I say to people, we're not a startup. We've been going as a show for three years now [the show started on TalkTV in the UK, before moving to YouTube in 2024], and we've been very successful. We're in the top five news-debate-opinion shows on YouTube in the world, no question. And I think we make more noise probably than anybody else, pretty much.
But I also think in my case, what I want to do is expand the 'Uncensored' brand into other genres. I've done all the crime documentaries in my time. I want to start building out a 'Crime Uncensored' channel. I want to roll out a 'History Uncensored' channel, and then look to other genres that we can do where we build out new channels around the 'Uncensored' brand.
You know, my sons are my best barometer. They're 31, 27, 24; they don't watch conventional television. The average age of cable news viewers in America is 70. Now, I come from newspapers, but no one really under probably 45 buys a print newspaper anymore. They all watch newspaper stuff online.
The other challenge I've had is, lots of people — since I've been talking about this and made it clear, I now own the channel, own the business — wanting to invest. And the question, as everybody in my position is asking is, how much of the hide do you want to give away to people at this stage when you're building?
TheWrap: What is that number? Where someone came to you today and said 'Hey, you can retain control, but we want a slice of the pie.'
Morgan: We've already got some [investors who have a small percentage of the pie. Have come in at a kind of valuation that we're talking about, which is well over $100 million. People have already taken the plunge at that level. One investor has, and we have others that we believe are going to come in at that level too.
So that gives you some idea, I think, of how we value the business. I think it is going to be worth a lot more than that going forward.
TheWrap: Your show has a knack for going viral. Whether it's the Kanye West interview recently that went haywire or the Lily Gaddis and Marc Lamont Hill confrontation, can you kind of fill me in on what the secret sauce is there?
Morgan: I was a tabloid newspaper editor for nearly 10 years. So I know a story when I see one. I know the potential for a story, and I know what the media is likely to get excited by. That's been ingrained in me for many years, being in the media, three, four decades now.
But then the second part of the equation is the team. I've got a very good team of bookers, very good team of producers, and very good show runners. And we collaborate together and work very carefully on casting each thing that we do.
The criteria is [guests] have got to be smart, they've got to be opinionated, they've got to be passionate, they've got to be knowledgeable about their issue, or they've got to be in the news. If they tick any of those boxes, then we either do one on one interviews with them, if that's appropriate, if it's a big news exclusive, or we'll do a casting of a debate where I always try and make it balanced.
If I do a one-on-one interview, I think I know what buttons to push, to get good news lines, to get good viral moments. So it's all part of the magic. [But] we never give away all our secrets.
TheWrap: I'm always pointing to this Gallup poll from last year that showed the American public's trust in the mainstream media is at an all-time low. Do you think there's anything that these mainstream outlets can do to win back that trust? Or do you think that ship has sailed at this point?
Morgan: I think the problem is a lot of them have masqueraded as being [neutral].
Take CNN, which is a network that I love. I worked there for years, got a lot of friends there. But I think when they lost their reputation for impartiality [was] in that Trump first term. It's very hard to get that back once you've made it clear that you're partisan, you're in the tank against a political leader, [and] then it's difficult to wrestle back your reputation as an impartial source of news. And I think also that young people don't watch cable news. They just don't. The average age is 70, which means a lot of the viewers of cable news are 80 or 90.
When I was at CNN, they would always win the big news story nights if there was a major disaster or a major event, CNN would win the ratings war on that because people trusted it. Now it often comes last on big news. And you ask yourself, if you're CNN, why? Why is that happening? What's happening is people don't view CNN anymore as an impartial purveyor of news, so they've lost their unique selling point. That's a big, strategic error by them as a network.
I mean, the Biden story is a classic example of why young people have gone off mainstream news. You know, they could all see with their own eyes how incapacitated the president of the United States was. It didn't take a genius to work out when a guy keeps falling over and mumbling his words and confusing people and all the rest of it, there was probably something rather badly wrong with his cognitive and physical ability.
And the idea that the mainstream media pretty much colluded to keep that secret from the American people, and are now all doing books about it, and reveling in 'Well, you know, this is the truth. It's a bit shocking, is it?' Well, yeah, it has [been].
TheWrap: What do you make of Jake Tapper's media tour?
Morgan: Well, I like Jake Tapper and I like Alex Thompson. I think they've been actually quite honest about their own failings in this area. I think I've seen Jake say he didn't really have much direct access to Biden or his top people to really make an assessment for himself [during his presidency], which I think is probably true. Biden didn't give many interviews to people like Jake Tapper, or certainly people not like me. Trump gives interviews all the time to people [and] is much more transparent and courageous in that sense, I would say so.
I think Jake Tapper's book with Alex Thomas is a very important book, and it will go down in history as a very important book, because it recounts in pretty shocking detail the full scale of not just Biden's cognitive and physical issues, which were, in my view, disqualifying for President of the United States, but also the general cover-up at the White House and by all the celebrity supporters.
You know, the likes of George Clooney now coming along saying, 'Well, of course, the moment I knew [about Biden's cognitive issues], I told you.' Oh, come on, man. You knew, George. I like George Clooney, but come on, stop taking us for [fools], George.
TheWrap: Have you seen a difference in how the media is covering Trump this term versus his first term?
Morgan: I think so. Look at CNN. if you look at Abby Phillip's show, for example, you wouldn't have had a show like that back in the first [Trump] term. They wouldn't have had someone like Scott Jennings going into bat so firmly for Trump every night, which he does brilliantly. He's still always outnumbered. I mean, it's not fair, you know, I don't think it's fair. They line up four against one, but he can more than capably handle himself. That kind of thing is good to see.
I think the general tone of a lot of [media] people [is] they have dialed down their obvious sneering towards Trump and his supporters. Which, last time, people like Anderson Cooper could barely keep the sneer off their faces. Don Lemon, you know, sneering away about Trump morning, noon and night, and they're still doing it now to a large degree, and that's fine.
Jim Acosta has revealed his colors [now that he has left CNN]. Everybody accused him of being biased against Trump. He's now making a fortune on Substack by being relentlessly biased against Trump, thereby proving that people were right to think that the White House correspondent for CNN was biased. He was. He's now making a ton of money by being brazenly, openly biased. So I think that, again, is part of the problem why people lost confidence in CNN.
If I was running things, I'd tell the Andersons and others like that, 'Stop sneering. You're sneering at someone who won everything in the election.' Report it [and] just be fair, be firm, be straight. But don't make it obvious that you hate the guy or that you hate his supporters or you think they're all idiots. Because you tried that last time, and it a) played into Trump's hands and b) it diminishes credibility in your network.
TheWrap: Do you have any issue with how President Trump talks about the media?
Morgan: If you read Trump's book, 'The Art of the Deal,' it's all in there, right? If you whack him, he's going to whack you 10 times back. No surprise. There's no secret. You know, he was a billionaire New York real estate guy, right? Who likes to trash talk, and I think we should all just stop having a collective anaphylactic shock every time he says something a little bit outrageous.
It's Donald Trump, he's not going to change. He's nearly 80 years old, he's not going to change. He's going to be Donald Trump. If you come after him, as Bruce Springsteen found out, you're going to get a whack back. You're going to get called overrated and wrinkly.
I find it quite entertaining, because I've known him so long, that in 20 years I know how he is. I've sat in 'The Apprentice' boardroom with him night after night for six weeks. So none of it is a surprise to me. None of it should be a surprise for anyone who read his book.
TheWrap: I'd love to know who you think dislikes Meghan Markle and Prince Harry more, the American public or the British public? And why?
Morgan: Very interesting question. I think the American public mock and ridicule them on a scale that dwarfs even anything that happens here. Here, we just feel very let down by Prince Harry, who was very popular. And then along comes Meghan Markle, and within a few years, she's dragged him back to America, trashed his family. He's now fallen out with all his family. She's fallen out of all her family, and I think that most Americans find them objects of ridicule.
Most people in Britain hate the attacks on the monarchy and the royal family and feel it's been very damaging, and feel it's been very disingenuous. Ultimately, we see two people who trade off their royal titles — making themselves very rich in the process — whilst continuing to attack the institution that bestowed the titles upon them. There's just a recurring hypocrisy there.
I've got no problem with them whoring themselves around in any way they see fit. But do it, in terms of commercially, without using the royal titles. If you hate the monarchy that much and you've fallen out with all the royal family, stop calling yourselves a Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Stop using the HRH title, and just be Harry and Megan and then see how you get on.
And the answer is, they wouldn't get on very well, because nobody would be that interested. There's a kind of boredom level setting in with them. I certainly feel pretty bored by their antics. I think that when you're down to making jam in your kitchen, the game is probably up.
The post No Filter: Piers Morgan Sounds Off on Trump, Biden, CNN's 'Sneering,' and Meghan Markle appeared first on TheWrap.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth warns Asia allies that China threat is ‘imminent'
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered a stark warning to Asian allies on Saturday, portraying the threat China poses to the region as 'real, and it could be imminent.' In his first speech to the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Hegseth was blunt about Washington's view of the Chinese military buildup in the region and the threat it poses to Taiwan, calling on allies to spend more on defense while pledging continued American partnership and support. "There's no reason to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent," Hegseth said. Any Chinese military move on Taiwan "would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world,' he added. The secretary's comments were delivered in front of a packed room of Asian diplomats, military officials and business leaders, who heard the most fulsome comments on the threat of China delivered by any member of the Trump administration to date. It comes after President Donald Trump delivered a speech in Saudi Arabia this month outlining his vision of a reduced American military footprint around the world, while pushing allies to invest more heavily in their own security. Vice President JD Vance followed that up with a speech emphasizing the vision of a United States that will no longer attempt to impose democracy and democratic values on other countries, but seek economic and military partnerships that offer value to both sides. While Hegseth pledged American support for allies in the region, he built upon that theme by telling allies they weren't spending enough on their own defense at a time when the U.S. is increasingly looking inward, moving troops and equipment to its southern border with Mexico instead of new deployments overseas. 'Credible deterrence starts at home. It starts at our borders,' he said. 'We have put troops on the Southwest border and are driving towards 100 percent operational control there.' The stop in Singapore marked the secretary's second trip to the region since his January swearing-in. It followed a trip to NATO headquarters in Europe where he admonished allies for not spending enough on defense, a criticism he imported to Singapore. "It's hard to believe, a little bit, after some trips to Europe, that I'm saying this, but thanks to President Trump, Asian allies should look to countries in Europe as a new found example," Hegseth said. The NATO goal of spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense has been updated by the Trump team to a whopping 5 percent, a goal that will be extremely difficult for most allies to achieve, including the United States, which spends about 3.5 percent on defense. Hegseth brought that message of more spending with him to Asia, telling the audience that 'we ask, and indeed we insist, that our allies and partners do their part on defense. Sometimes that means having uncomfortable and tough conversations.' On the spending issue, Hegseth remained frank. "It doesn't make sense for countries in Europe to do that while key allies in Asia spend less on defense in the face of an even more formidable threat, not to mention North Korea,' he said. That message will rankle some allies in the region, as Australia is spending billions on a partnership with the U.S. and U.K. to build a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, and Japan and South Korea have invested heavily in their own militaries in recent years. South Korea has emerged as a defense-industrial powerhouse, selling artillery and air defense systems across Europe. Hegseth also suggested that European nations should focus their efforts on securing European territory, allowing the U.S. to focus more on the Indo-Pacific. "We're pushing our allies in Europe to own more of their security — to invest in their own defense ... Thanks to President Trump, they are stepping up," Hegseth said.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller calls out CNN anchor's 'lazy assumptions' about Trump's executive power
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called out CNN's Pamela Brown's "lazy assumptions" regarding the Trump administration's executive power during an appearance on "The Situation Room" on Friday. Miller rejected the notion that district judges should have to "green light" each individual policy directive or executive order that President Donald Trump implements, claiming that it challenges the will of the voters who put him in office. The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a lower court order that blocked the Trump administration from deporting roughly 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The decision is a near-term victory for Trump as he moves to crack down on border security and immigration priorities in his second term. Supreme Court Hands Trump Win On Revoking Parole For 500K Foreign Nationals The order stays, for now. The lower court ruling halted Trump's plans to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for some migrants living in the U.S., which allows individuals to live and work in the U.S. legally if they cannot work safely in their home country due to a disaster, armed conflict or other "extraordinary and temporary conditions." Brown asked Miller whether he believes district judges should just "rubber stamp" whatever the Trump White House does, and if not, what checks and balances he thinks should be in place. Read On The Fox News App "It's not the job of a district court judge to perform an individual green light or red light on every single policy that the president takes as the head of the executive branch," Miller replied. "Just think about the premise baked into your question. Respectfully, Pam, you're saying that when the American people elect a president of the United States of America…" Brown interrupted before he could finish his thought, claiming that her words were being taken out of context, and that she was just asking what checks and balances should be in place. Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture "I will answer the question happily," Miller responded. "But look, when you have these kinds of lazy assumptions built into questions, it makes it hard to have a constructive dialogue." The CNN anchor asked what "lazy assumptions" he thought she was making. Miller began to argue that district judges should not individually approve each executive action implemented by the president, but was interrupted by Brown stating that her question was being misinterpreted. She went on to clarify that she was questioning what checks and balances the Trump official felt were appropriate. Brown contended that her question about whether judges are expected to "rubber stamp" White House decisions was reasonable, before giving Miller the floor to finish his argument. "When you say, 'Do we think district court judges should rubber stamp each action' — there is a premise that is built into that that is absurd," he asserted. "The president is the sole head of the executive branch. He's the only officer in the entire government that's elected by the entire American people." "Democracy cannot function — in fact, democracy does not exist at all if each action the president takes - foreign policy, diplomatic, military, national security - has to be individually approved by 700 district court judges," he continued. "That's democracy? So if there's 15 communist, crazy judges on the court, that each of them as a team working together can block and freeze each and every executive action?"Original article source: Stephen Miller calls out CNN anchor's 'lazy assumptions' about Trump's executive power
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth reassures allies that US will support them against Chinese aggression
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reaffirmed in a speech in Singapore on Saturday that the United States will continue to support U.S allies in the Indo-Pacific region against Chinese aggression as he warned that Chinese military action against Taiwan could be "imminent." Hegseth made his remarks in a speech at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, which is organized by the International Institute for Security Studies and is a high-profile gathering of regional and international security leaders. His remarks laid out how the Trump administration sees the Indo-Pacific region as a "priority theater" and how the U.S. is prepared to stand by allies in a region where China continues to carry out aggressive military actions, particularly against Taiwan and the Philippines. MORE: Hegseth, Gabbard lead US delegation to major security summit in Singapore "We do not seek conflict with Communist China. We will not instigate nor seek to subjugate or humiliate," Hegseth said. "President Trump and the American people have immense respect for the Chinese people and their civilization, but we will not be pushed out of this critical region. And we will not let our allies and partners be subordinated and intimidated." In recent years China has invested heavily in building up its military and increased its naval and air presence around Taiwan, engaging in almost daily harassment of Taiwan's borders -- raising concerns that it is preparing to retake by force the island nation it considers a breakaway province. "Nobody knows what China will ultimately do," said Hegseth. "But they are preparing and we must, therefore, be ready as well. Urgency and vigilance is our only option." "We are preparing for war, to deter war — to achieve peace through strength," Hegseth added. "And we look to you — our allies and partners — to join us in this important work. Our time is now. The threats we face will not wait. Nor can we." MORE: Macron will kick off Singapore security conference with Hegseth in attendance "To be clear: any attempt by Communist China to conquer Taiwan by force would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world," said Hegseth who stressed that China may be ready to act sooner than the 2027 deadline that China's President Xi Jinping had set for China's military to be prepared for possible action against Taiwan. "There is no reason to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent -- we hope not, but it certainly could be," said Hegseth. China has also increased tensions with the Philippines where Chinese military vessels regularly harass Philippine ships operating in the international waters of the South China Sea as it continues to assert its territorial claims in the region. Relations between the U.S. and China have also soured following Trump's announcement of steep tariffs on Chinese imports that led China to announce reciprocal tariffs. Both sides have since entered into a shaky temporary agreement to lower their tariffs. MORE: Trump admin live updates: Trump says he's doubling steel tariff to 50% In his remarks, Hegseth said the Trump administration was pursuing a "common sense" approach to reestablishing deterrence that includes increasing the U.S. military presence in the western Pacific, "helping allies and partners strengthen their defense capabilities, and by rebuilding our defense industrial bases." Hegseth encouraged Asian countries to follow the example of NATO nations that have made commitments to increase their military spending to 5% of their gross domestic product as the Trump administration has stated that it wants them to take more ownership of their security commitments in Europe. "President Trump and I will be counting on you in this room -- our allies and partners -- to be force multipliers of peace alongside the United States," Hegseth said. "We ask — and indeed, we insist — that our allies and partners do their part on defense." He added, "Sometimes, this means having uncomfortable and tough conversations. Partners owe to it to each other to be honest and realistic. This is the essence of a pragmatic, common-sense foreign policy." Hegseth emphasized that the administration's approach does not mean that America's allies will have to go it alone in potential military actions. "You will also see that we are -- and will remain -- loyal to our allies and partners. In fact, the only way to ensure lasting alliances and partnerships is to make sure each side does its part," he said. Hegseth added, "We will stand with you and beside you to deter Chinese aggression," said Hegseth. The forum is sometimes an opportunity for high-level meetings between top U.S. and Chinese defense leaders during times of rising tension. But in an apparent snub, China's defense minister did not attend this year's forum and instead China was represented by a delegation from its National Defense University. MORE: Trump claims China 'totally violated' trade agreement with US "We can't account for whether or not China is here or not, but we're glad we are, and we think it makes the region more stable and more peaceful," Hegseth told reporters when asked to comment on China's decision. China's rising aggression in the region has been a major topic of the conference that included an opening address by French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been touring of Southeast Asian nations to stress France's role in the region. On Friday night, Hegseth sat in the audience as Macron stressed the importance of a new alliance between European and Asian nations to avoid becoming "collateral victims of decisions made by superpowers" -- a reference to the United States and China. Macron cautioned against a loss of credibility for the international-rules based order if it is applied differently by the U.S. with regard to China while it attempts to resolve the war in Ukraine by allowing Russia to keep seized Ukrainian territory as the Trump administration has proposed. "If we consider that Russia could be allowed to take a part of the territory of Ukraine without any restriction, without any constraint, without any reaction of the global order, how would you phrase what could happen in Taiwan?" Macron said. "What would you do the day something happens in the Philippines?" "What is at stake in Ukraine is our common credibility, that we are still able to preserve territorial integrity and sovereignty of people," said Macron. "No double standards." Hegseth reassures allies that US will support them against Chinese aggression originally appeared on
