Piers Morgan: unemployed

[shortylickens]

I respectfully disagree.

You can not use your morals and values to judge another culture.

Piers does not / can not / will not understand our gun culture. He is a subject to the crown. It takes a free person to understand gun ownership.

You arent supposed to use ANY morals or values nor judge another culture when you report on it.

People are so fucking used to being told what they should think they cant even form an independent thought.

A truly objective reporter or documentarian looks at everything coldly. It shouldn't matter what their gender, color, or nationality is. Americans are so used to being badass cool and having their special personal fucking opinions. You honestly believe you have to have one specific position or another on guns just to have a valid opinion.

Thats sad and a little twisted.

 

[Incorruptible]

Not surprised at all. He was a leftist scumbag who had no respect for the Constitution. I did enjoy watching him in the gun control debates and how we would lose all the time.

 

[LunarRay]

Just like in here, always irks me having people outside the U.S. arguing U.S. related stuff in here.

I especially despise British and Aussie accents on U.S. TV on a daily basis. Once in a while is tolerable but not on an every day in your face.

Perspective...

You may not remember Vladimir Pozner back in the Cold War days who'd be on American TV quite often speaking to what the KGB talking points on the Soviet Union dictated... He was good at it and mainly because he was educated here with a Brooklyn accent but Soviet by some rationalization and French by birth and Jewish...

Folks would listen to him and gain a new perspective on what or who the Soviets were from someone who they thought was totally Russian in every aspect.

Morgan is no Pozner... he argues while Pozner smiled and allowed the interviewer the dignity of position... Pozner was 'touted' as being a journalist... but he was not really that... he was a Soviet propagandist and apologist for insanity and folks saw him as Saint Russia... well... many did.

 

[Thebobo]

He is the epitome of a modern progressive.

You have no clue.

 

[Fern]

Who is defending him? I looked through the thread and I haven't seen anyone doing that.

Did you maybe mistake someone saying taking exception to someone making a blanket statement that non-US viewpoints were strange and bad as defending him? Did you maybe think that saying that virtually all cable news hosts are vile individuals as defending him?

This is all very confusing. Maybe you can clarify.

My comment was primarily sparked by this line you wrote: "All those shows are worthless and to single out Piers Morgan seems myopic."

If he's being "singled out" it's because he was just fired and that's the subject of this thread.

As to comments by non-US citizens about the US: There's nothing out of the ordinary about it. The vast majority of the time we hear international news it's delivered, whether straight up news or OpEd, by a US (news) person and not a person from that country (although we do have on-the-scene reports from locals sometimes) . Likewise, when you're in a foreign country and listening to their news on the USA, it's delivered by a non-US person.

But Morgan IS a little different. He's a foreigner with a show in the US market talking about US issues. That's a little unique and a bit different. It would seem the network bosses are purposefully trying to bring us the UK perspective almost 24/7. Was there ever a market for that? I think not.

Plus he's typically vapid about US matters, particularly the Constitution. Now that's somewhat understandable for a non-US person broadcasting from their own country. But his show is HERE and for our consumption, accordingly he should have been more knowledgeable about US issues, the focus of his show.

He's another who complains about guns and when reminded that gun ownership is protected by the Constitution blithely responds with "well, you should change it then", as if it's a simple matter.

Fern

 

[Thebobo]

Apparently people generally agree with me since his show is canceled. I understand your point about other views but a cnn show is not the place for them.

Why someone forcing you to watch it?

Isn't Wolf Blizter German `OMG

RT, BBC, AJ all have shows on American cable

 

[Pocatello]

I have never watched the show.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

He reminds me of hal9000. Basically a bunch of elitist uninformed and irrelevant opinions that no red blooded American cares about.

 

[UberNeuman]

After Piers was fired, he was immediately thrown into Boston Harbor.

\never watched him. don't care.

 

[moonbogg]

I never cared for the guy, but I'm glad his platform to bash the 2nd has been taken away. One less piece of trash to clean up after every shooting incident.

 

[shabby]

He reminds me of hal9000. Basically a bunch of elitist uninformed and irrelevant opinions that no red blooded American cares about.

Nonsense, americans care, they sit around their coffee tables sippin on tea'n'bisquits while watching peers...

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Thats because you are a closed minded person.

It makes MORE sense to have foreigners look at a country. Objectivity is whats needed. Not nearly enough Americans have it.

For a while there the BBC made EXCELLENT documentaries on America. Then they got a taste of money, started sensationalizing, and it all went to shit.

I respect you shorty and I feel I'm pretty open minded, I find Piers particularly irritating and could never take his opinion seriously on American matters.

 

[BoberFett]

Am I the only person in P&N that doesn't watch any of these shitty political opinion shows? Morgan, Hannity, Rush, that woman, the other guy, and all those other guys. I guess I prefer to form my own opinion based on things that are, to the best of knowledge, actual news. I don't understand the appeal of these types of shows, other than to feed people's rage quotas. If I had to guess, I'd say that these blowhards have more people of the opposite political leaning watching them than they do their own kind, just because people want to find the next thing to rage about on some web forum...

 

[BoberFett]

I especially despise British and Aussie accents on U.S. TV on a daily basis. Once in a while is tolerable but not on an every day in your face.

Yes, but that's because you don't understand what's being said when a Brit say words that end in -our instead of -or...

 

[Fanatical Meat]

My comment was primarily sparked by this line you wrote: "All those shows are worthless and to single out Piers Morgan seems myopic."

If he's being "singled out" it's because he was just fired and that's the subject of this thread.

As to comments by non-US citizens about the US: There's nothing out of the ordinary about it. The vast majority of the time we hear international news it's delivered, whether straight up news or OpEd, by a US (news) person and not a person from that country (although we do have on-the-scene reports from locals sometimes) . Likewise, when you're in a foreign country and listening to their news on the USA, it's delivered by a non-US person.

But Morgan IS a little different. He's a foreigner with a show in the US market talking about US issues. That's a little unique and a bit different. It would seem the network bosses are purposefully trying to bring us the UK perspective almost 24/7. Was there ever a market for that? I think not.

Plus he's typically vapid about US matters, particularly the Constitution. Now that's somewhat understandable for a non-US person broadcasting from their own country. But his show is HERE and for our consumption, accordingly he should have been more knowledgeable about US issues, the focus of his show.

He's another who complains about guns and when reminded that gun ownership is protected by the Constitution blithely responds with "well, you should change it then", as if it's a simple matter.

Fern

Thank you Fern you summed up my opinion perfectly.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Why someone forcing you to watch it?

Isn't Wolf Blizter German `OMG

RT, BBC, AJ all have shows on American cable

I guess Wolf is but he grew up here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer

 

[fskimospy]

My comment was primarily sparked by this line you wrote: "All those shows are worthless and to single out Piers Morgan seems myopic."

If he's being "singled out" it's because he was just fired and that's the subject of this thread.

I guess if you view calling someone no more worthless than other hosts employed on cable news channels to be 'defending' them, I guess I'd just say that you have an awfully low standard for what constitutes 'defense'. I am of the opinion that if you are watching any cable news at all, you are a fool. If you are watching shows like Piers Morgan, O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or (previously) Keith Olbermann you are an exceptionally large fool. They exist only to salve the egos of people of their respective political tribes.

As to comments by non-US citizens about the US: There's nothing out of the ordinary about it. The vast majority of the time we hear international news it's delivered, whether straight up news or OpEd, by a US (news) person and not a person from that country (although we do have on-the-scene reports from locals sometimes) . Likewise, when you're in a foreign country and listening to their news on the USA, it's delivered by a non-US person.

So what? That doesn't mean it is a good thing.

But Morgan IS a little different. He's a foreigner with a show in the US market talking about US issues. That's a little unique and a bit different. It would seem the network bosses are purposefully trying to bring us the UK perspective almost 24/7. Was there ever a market for that? I think not.

If by 24/7 you mean one hour a night, four days a week... okay.

Plus he's typically vapid about US matters, particularly the Constitution. Now that's somewhat understandable for a non-US person broadcasting from their own country. But his show is HERE and for our consumption, accordingly he should have been more knowledgeable about US issues, the focus of his show.

He's another who complains about guns and when reminded that gun ownership is protected by the Constitution blithely responds with "well, you should change it then", as if it's a simple matter.

Fern

Maybe we should change it, that's the whole point. Everyone benefits from new viewpoints, even if you don't agree with them. That, unfortunately is probably the biggest issue here. People don't actually want differing viewpoints, they want people to tell them that they've been right all along.

 

[Herr Kutz]

Can't believe we allow in foreigners who campaign to take away our rights.

This country is seriously f'ed up.

 

[rommelrommel]

Am I the only person in P&N that doesn't watch any of these shitty political opinion shows? Morgan, Hannity, Rush, that woman, the other guy, and all those other guys. I guess I prefer to form my own opinion based on things that are, to the best of knowledge, actual news. I don't understand the appeal of these types of shows, other than to feed people's rage quotas. If I had to guess, I'd say that these blowhards have more people of the opposite political leaning watching them than they do their own kind, just because people want to find the next thing to rage about on some web forum...

Does the Colbert report count?

I don't get them either... There's almost no "news" on them nor much reasoned debate.

 

[rommelrommel]

Can't believe we allow in foreigners who campaign to take away our rights.

This country is seriously f'ed up.

Yeah, freedom of speech and a free press are so stupid. No one should have to ever be exposed to anything that mildly contradicts their worldview.

 

[shortylickens]

I respect you shorty and I feel I'm pretty open minded, I find Piers particularly irritating and could never take his opinion seriously on American matters.

Then THATS the reason, not cuz he's a foreigner.

 

[sourn]

I could care less wither a foreigner talks about US laws or not as long as they have a clue of what they're talking about. This idiot didn't.

 

[Sulaco]

Pure and simply, Piers Morgan was a pot stirrer. Period. Good or bad, like him or not, that was his reason for being on air.

You can make the argument that in some ways all television and interview personalities are now, but Piers was transparently so.

He was an act. Whether he really believed or cared about the positions he took is immaterial. He was a controversial personality groomed to stir discussion and elicit the exact reactions people in this thread have had, e.g. "Why the fuck should a Brit tell us what our laws should be?! Where does he get off ?! .........................I'm tuning in next week to see what asinine thing he says to a guest next!"

Clearly, that strategy didn't pan out, however, to the extent they had hoped.

Watch his interview with Howard Stern. In his interviewing, Stern firmly but gently calls him on his schtick, and that he (Stern) is aware he's trying to be provocative and elicit some kind of outburst from Stern and his guests, for which Stern is too shrewd to fall for.

It's all a stage production.

 

[mikeymikec]

I respectfully disagree.

You can not use your morals and values to judge another culture.

Pretty much everyone does all of the time. Please don't suggest to me that you don't (and haven't ever done it). For example, if you check your other threads on the topics of sexism and homosexuality, you're judging others all the time, it doesn't make any difference if they're in a different country to you or not. The fact is, they obviously have different morals and values to you for there to be a difference of opinion.

Having someone from another culture look at one's own can give a unique insight.

For example, I visited a customer a couple of years ago, a foreign student going to a local university in a house full of other foreign students. While I was working on her computer, we got talking about various topics, mostly revolving around the fact that everyone in that house chews up the Internet non-stop by watching home television (ie. from their own countries) over the Internet.

I asked why they didn't just get satellite/cable and watch the foreign channels through there. She said it was because you have to pay a TV licence here (IIRC, £150 UKP / year), then the cost of the cable/satellite, then possibly the cost of extra channels that aren't included by default etc, then the problem that only one channel can be watched at a time with the basic offering (unless you set something special up in the house, and this was a house full of students).

She then expressed her amazement (in a "you seem to have suddenly sprouted an extra head" kind of way) that we actually have to pay a LICENCE to watch TV (specifically to watch broadcast TV programmes with a TV) here? I hadn't thought of it that way before, and she has a point. I have other foreign customers who aren't interested in UK TV at all and have their satellites set up differently to watch foreign channels, yet they have to pay a British TV licence under the current rules. I always looked at the TV licence as a way of paying for the BBC, (which provides a pretty damn good service IMO), as well as partial funding for the other four terrestrial channels that we get here (IIRC) without cable/satellite/freeview.

 

[who?]

Doesn't the constitution put limits on what the FEDERAL government can do despite what the Heller decision said?