Piers Morgan, the New Jerry Springer

After Wednesday night’s CNN special, Guns in America, it has become clear that Piers Morgan is one thrown chair away from being the newest Jerry Springer.

After he indulged his latest shoutfest and bout of name calling, Morgan has shown that he is no more serious as a commentator and interviewer than the syndicated tabloid talker.

Jerry Springer made himself famous for screamfests, fist fights, and name calling on his daytime TV show but who cannot see that Piers Morgan is only a few steps removed from Springerism?

Take Guns in America as only the latest example. Morgan sold the show as a “townhall,” a meaningful discussion about the “crisis” of guns. Instead of a meaningful discussion, however, Morgan screamed at guests, called them liars, cut them off from speaking, and generally acted the bore.

All it would have taken for a full Springer experience is for a chair to be thrown by a baby momma or two.

Sadly, this is what Piers Morgan has devolved to. And last night wasn’t the first time Morgan indulged this sort of ignorant behavior. Only hours before his “special” he called a guest a “unbelievably stupid,” and on Tweet after Tweet he’s name called and acted the child.

Of course, Jerry Springer was himself the new kid on the block once. Springer took over for Morton Downy Junior, who became famous as “Mort the Mouth,” and pioneered the sort of raucous, confrontational TV that Springer inherited.

Well, now Piers Morgan is vying to replace Springer as Springer replaced “Mort the Mouth.”

Morgan’s one thrown chair away from completing the transformation.

Shortlink:

Posted by on December 24, 2012.
Filed under corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Deaths, Democrats, Gun control, Immigration, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com "The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Sky__Captain

    At least Jerry Springer’s program was syndicated and not associated with a network.
    CNN has no excuse to air Piers Morgan’s crap. It certainly can’t be for ratings numbers, as CNN’s are already in the basement.

  • EricSteel

    Piers Morgan’s best interview, a sidewalk.
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uWx06tUxWo4

  • 914

    At least the fights on Springer were entertaining.

  • Brian_R_Allen

    Warner Todd Huston says

    …. it has become clear that Piers Morgan is the new Jerry Springer ….

    Despite that to call that terminally-ill-toddlers’-telephones-tapping duck’s–bum-mouthed bog-mick, “Jerry Springer,” is to insult Mr Springer!

  • GarandFan

    When it comes time for that ‘intelligent conversation about guns’, Morgan should be one of the first ones escorted out the door so that the adults can talk without childish interruptions.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3JU6RVBLAKGR6HKK5OKTLU2DR4 pat

    Hey. Let’s trash The Constitution because some ostracized Brit, fired from his two last jobs, says we are all stupid for having such a silly document.
    Nah. Let’s trash the Brit instead. We fought a war to rid ourselves of these pests.

    • trejtt

      Morgan hurt gun control with his school yard ad hominems, but I can understand his frustration. Most of the talking heads ignore the facts, twist and pervert reality to serve their position and a weak-willed, job protecting congress does their bidding and repeats the same anti-human one-liners they concoct. The right wing uses their issue as a way to enthrall a large part of our unthinking populace, making them believe unrestricted, unregulated gun rights are an American value, which is entirely untrue and a bastardization of the Constitution. No one is “trashing” that document, they are simply saying that it was not carved in stone and sent to us from on high and that it should reflect modern day situation and not that of 250 years ago. Read the Constitution and you will see that it wasn’t suggesting that citizens arm themselves with SAMs and nuclear weapons, and that it wasn’t a call to arms against fellow citizens but to outside aggression.

      • herddog505

        Um, I hate to point this out to you, but the Constitution is the law of the land: for all practical purposes, it IS “carved in stone”. Now, if you want to go about amending it (nifty little feature that the Founding Fathers put in, don’t you think?), feel free to try, but please stop with the “it’s really old and doesn’t apply to our sooper-ultra-modern lives so we can ignore it” schtick.

        Oh, and can you tell us which other parts of the musty, dusty, old Constitution we can ignore because they aren’t “carved in stone” and “sent to us from on high”?

      • EricSteel

        I’m curious, do you have the same opinion of the ACLU and the way they defend civil liberties? How many of our other civil liberties, should be modernized?

        • trejtt

          I was commenting on Piers Morgan and his childish remarks. But if you want to talk about gun control…You figure that free speech and the ACLU are a good comparison for gun ownership “rights”? Two totally different subjects. But if that meets your standard, ok, how about “Hate speech” for instance. If I urged people to kill others I am legally culpable, particularly if they actually go out and do what I suggested. But before you say no one on the right wing is urging gun owners to go out and kill, I didn’t say that, and it that is exactly why your example of free speech and the ACLU do not work as a counter to what I wrote about initially on gun control. Nevertheless, there are regulations and restrictions for many if not most Constitutional rights. The gun lobby (and those it has duped since the 1960′s) does not accept this fact for their own pet right and they ignore the facts of the situation, and the facts of the situation in every other country where guns are more controlled than in the US. You don’t trust your neighbor so you want to arm yourself; you are my neighbor and I don’t trust you to have a weapon (at least one of the mass destruction types used only for killing people); statistics on gun deaths, both accidental and violent, back the rationality of my fear of you much more than they do your fear of everyone.
          As to the person who said that gun rights were in fact etched in stone: mine was a reference to the biblical Ten Commandments etched in stone by God, not by the second amendment etched onto the brains of un-thinking blockheads.

          • EricSteel

            Wow you sure read a lot into my comment, that wasn’t there, and yet still missed the point.

            Rights to free speech and ownership of guns are codified in the US Constitution and form the the first two parts of the Bill of Rights.

            The ACLU is an organization that vigorously and zealously defends the right to free speech. The NRA is an organization that vigorously and zealously defends the right to own guns.

            Both organizations are there to protect our civil rights. You take exception to people who wish to defend our right to bear arms which is one of our fundamental rights. Do you take exception to people who defend free speech and believe in unrestricted, unregulated free speech?

            If you believe that the right to bear arms is an outdated concept, what other rights in the Constitution do you think are outdated?

            Finally, you are very confused. If I shoot someone, that is illegal. I do not have a 2nd Amendment defense. If you go out and urge another person to kill, you do not have a 1st Amendment defense.

            However, you are talking about infringing on people’s rights. Do you believe that the government should control what you can and can’t say? And that the mere act of commenting on this blog were illegal? I hope not.

            But that is what gun control is about. It is about making it illegal to own an object independent of its use. Gun control treats a gun purchased for peaceful purpose the same as a gun purchased for non-peaceful purpose.

          • trejtt

            On the contrary, you are reading what I say through the blinders of belief and therefore pretend like it is I who am misunderstanding. Your rhetorical questions and concocted scenarios that do not apply to what I wrote are meant as a means of deflecting argument without ever replying to my comment, to make the speaker, me in this case, appear to be either misunderstanding or to hold beliefs that are regularly vilified by Fox News and other right wing media who provide the words for you then to blather and bombast about the left wing etc. I’ve said what I intended; if you can’t understand it you probably shouldn’t be in this discussion, but if you’re just trying, as I said, to play games by pretending ignorance, I am uninterested. Why not put your own opinion down instead of feigning ignorance at my very clear words? And I don’t mean such blather as the entirely unsupported “Gun control treats a gun purchased for peaceful purpose the same as a gun purchased for non-peaceful purpose”, which is the crap that Fox promulgates, a totally false end-of-America fear-mongering kind of statement that shows absolutely no abilities to think clearly or rationally.

            But I was talking about Piers Morgan and my own understanding, though disrespecting for his schoolyard methods, of his disgust with the pro-gun lobby. You should go and look on a gun control forum if you want to try to bait people. I’m sure there are left wing fanatics who will take up your call to arms and let you work them into a lather.

          • EricSteel

            “…Fox News and other right wing media who provide the words for you then to blather and bombast about the left wing etc.”

            You should go back and read your own comments. You come across as a bombastic ass as YOU blather on about right wing and left wing.

            “And I don’t mean such blather as the entirely unsupported “Gun control treats a gun purchased for peaceful purpose the same as a gun purchased for non-peaceful purpose”, which is the crap that Fox promulgates, a totally false end-of-America fear-mongering kind of statement that shows absolutely no abilities to think clearly or rationally.”

            Talk about deflection.

          • trejtt

            Bombast is lengthy unsolicited opinion in this case. You asked me for clarification and then were unable to understand so you call it bombast. As to the “deflection” of saying that your ridiculous repetition of an NRA talking point for morons, that all gun control is bad, ok, if you want to stick by that quote, by all means. You just take yourself out of the debate by holding to such a ridiculous statement, though.

            Seriously, you need to hone your liberal-baiting technique. Your first task would be to find a stupid, unthinking knee jerk liberal instead of someone who is pragmatic. Believe me, there are almost as many of them out there as there are neocon knee-jerkers. Well, maybe not almost, but at least 50% as many. Don’t they have a free course for liberal-bating on Fox that you could watch? They might even have a .pdf you can download complete with pre-fab rhetorical questions to use when you think someone is thinking outside the neo-con box. Either that or you’re just a troll who has no belief either way and are simply trying to get a rise out of people who do. That might well be since you have contributed no thoughts at all to the discussion.

          • EricSteel

            “Your first task would be to find a stupid, unthinking knee jerk liberal instead of someone who is pragmatic.”
            Mission accomplished. What’s your point?

          • Hawk_TX

            trejtt-”You don’t trust your neighbor so you want to arm yourself; you are my neighbor and I don’t trust you to have a weapon ”

            You are actually admitting that you want to infringe on others rights because of your emotional insecurity. Most liberals will at least pretend that it is about fighting crime or is “for the children”, neither of which is true (statistics on crime and gun ownership actually back the irrationality of your fears). Look at Chicago for an example. Chicago has the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and it has the highest murder rate.

            Finally you are wrong about those who fight for gun rights. They do trust their neighbors. Which is why they are not trying to disarm them. The only ones they don’t trust are those who wish to violate their rights.

          • trejtt

            No, Chicago doesn’t, that would be Washington, DC, but hey, what is truth when you can concoct a statement to prove your point and by golly it sure does sound great when you guys pull out that BS Chicago statistic. But aside from any individual city (especially since your one instance is entirely wrong), why not use fairer numbers, such as country by country comparison where the rest of the civilized world have a fraction of the deaths that this country does? You’ll say Switzerland has more guns per capita, but there is a difference between assault weapons and the people-hunting guns you personal freedom fighters are defending and those owned and available to the Swiss. Besides, any local laws in the US regarding gun control would be ineffective since guns are easily purchased anywhere else; it would be like preventing booze in a dry county.

            Finally, you say you trust your neighbors, but you have to have guns to defend yourself from neighbors infringing on your God-given right to have weapons? Interesting concept. Bizarre, but interesting. You’re the Unibomber without the IQ.

            But enough from me. Gun fanatics in the US can not be reasoned with, they don’t want the truth.

          • EricSteel

            Morgan hurt gun control with his school yard ad hominems

            Seriously, you need to hone your liberal-baiting technique. Your first task would be to find a stupid, unthinking knee jerk liberal instead of someone who is pragmatic. Believe me, there are almost as many of them out there as there are neocon knee-jerkers. Well, maybe not almost, but at least 50% as many. Don’t they have a free course for liberal-bating on Fox that you could watch? They might even have a .pdf you can download complete with pre-fab rhetorical questions to use when you think someone is thinking outside the neo-con box. Either that or you’re just a troll who has no belief either way and are simply trying to get a rise out of people who do. That might well be since you have contributed no thoughts at all to the discussion.

            Piers is that you?

          • jim_m

            Idiot. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. They were struck down by the Supreme Court and the laws passed afterwards were struck down as well. Chicago remains essentially a gun free zone. Mayor Emmanuel is advocating to conduct sting operations on gun stores outside of the city’s jurisdiction in order to cut off gun sales. Chicago remains almost impossible to get a gun legally as you are required to register a gun and the registration process is extremely difficult.

            Chicago resides in Cook County, which just passed a tax on gun sales and narrowly rejected a tax on bullets.

            Chicago is in Illinois, which is the only state that does not have a concealed carry law and the US 7th District Appellate Court struck down that ban as unconstitutional in the last month.

            Chicago has arguably the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

          • trejtt

            Moron, saying Chicago has the most gun homicides despite the laws is a lie. That was what i wrote, not a denial of whatever laws they have. Telling me about the laws is entirely beside the point. But you knew that, you simply had no rebuttal and you prefer to focus on things I didn’t say so that you can pretend I am demonstrably wrong. You also ignore the other 90% of the paragraph I wrote, since you simply have no counter argument, that gun control laws in one city in the middle of the US would be useless since guns of any kind are to be had all over the country. And yes, Chicago is in Illinois. Did you just learn that at GED University? Switzerland is in Europe, too, did they tell you that, chucklehead? But seriously, why doesn’t one of you drones just write BUWAHAHAHA! and pretend you “won”? I know, I’ll shut off automatic notification. You unthinking extremists won’t be happy until you get your new civil war. Reasonable thinking and compromise, the cornerstone of democracy, is counter to everything you’ve been taught to stand for.

          • jim_m

            Actually, your statement is not specific to homicide rate and since you subsequently discuss gun ownership it is reasonable that anyone reading your comment would assume that your statement was in regard to gun laws.

            As for Switzerland,

            In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles (fully automatic, or “selective fire”) stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 models. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million. In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the USA

            So it seems that you really didn’t know much about weapons in that country. They both have more assault rifles than you claim and fewer weapons in total than you estimated.

            And I grew up in Chicago which is why I understand the gun laws. Finally, if there is going to be a civil war it will be brought on by the left. After all, wasn’t James Hoffa just foretelling such a civil war just last month? The left will bring it on as certain as the sun will rise in the East.

          • trejtt

            I was replying directly to some blowhard who said specifically that Chicago had the highest murder rate in the US. If yu didn’t understand that and what I wrote it’s either because you didn’t want to or because you simply didn’t read the thread and jumped in without knowing.

            However, you’re right, I did not know about Switzerland’s gun-types. The regulations within that country are, however, highly specific and much more controlled than in the US (I suggest you read the rest of the Wikipedia article you quoted, without reference, for the specifics). That aside, and though I admit to not knowing the facts of ownership there before countering some else’ incorrect comparison of Switzerland to the US situation, automatic weapons for a citizenry (given the restrictions they have on who can buy) without a standing army does not seem unreasonable. I would probably trust other people with assault weapons if I was living in Switzerland; it’s the right wing fanatics in this country that are fighting so hard for a bastardized interpretation of the second amendment that I do not trust.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            What is the correct, non-bastardized interpretation of the Second Amendment? It sounds like you’ve done a lot of research into the writings and intentions of the authors of the Second Amendment and I’d like to learn more.

          • EricSteel

            For instance, some idiot said, “Gun control treats a gun purchased for peaceful purpose the same as a gun purchased for non-peaceful purpose”. How can there be a two way street with such a complete absolutist nut job? Where does one start to negotiate with such an unthinking twerp? And you want to give this douchestain an assault weapon?

            Hey BvO, what is the policy on personal attacks. I’m not normally a complainer, but in the span of 4 sentences I was called an idiot, a nut job, an unthinking twerp and a douchestain.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            My personal policy is, “suck it up.” He’s flailing, failing, and he knows it. He’s not interested in reason or the practicality/effectiveness of firearm bans or finding reasonable solutions to horrible yet rarer-than-death-by-lightning-strike crimes. Baby wants his baba and anyone who thinks otherwise is a poo poo head.

            I’m just holding out hope he’ll drop a wee bit of that vast library of knowledge he’s accumulated on the origins and intent of the Second Amendment.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            Well if you’re truly interested in a reasoned discussion it needs to be a two way street. Part of the reason “gun fanatics” don’t respond to your “reason” is that, a) people don’t respond well to being labeled a fanatic or nut because you disagree with them and b) the Constitution is pretty clear about the right to bear arms not being infringed. I know a literal interpretation of the Constitution and belief in limited power of federal government isn’t stylish these days, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a valid point of view.

          • trejtt

            When it comes to this topic and to the people “discussing” my original statement, however, their version of a two way street is the Boehnerian definition, it’s black or white (or I guess “white or black” in this case, right?) where their/your side doesn’t budge and the other side changes their beliefs or just gives up. Basically, you people are putting your fingers in your ears and going “NAAAAAAAAAA!” to anything other than your own extreme beliefs, there is no exchange of ideas, just their bombast and their ignored statistics. For instance, some idiot said, “Gun control treats a gun purchased for peaceful purpose the same as a gun purchased for non-peaceful purpose”. How can there be a two way street with such a complete absolutist nut job? Where does one start to negotiate with such an unthinking twerp? And you want to give this douchestain an assault weapon? People have been citing NRA talking points at me instead of addressing what I write. Those who refuse to consider other points of view could be the definition of fanatic.

            I do not advocate a no guns policy, but we have to do something about regulating the free and easy access to purchase of virtually any type of weapon in this country, we need to make owners responsible for proper storage, and we need to make it a more serious crime to be caught with an illegal weapon. Further, if you Wild Westers want your weapons and you have it mounted above the mantelpiece or not stored safely and it is stolen and later used in a murder, you should be held responsible. If you sell it to someone not allowed to have such a weapon, ditto, but those are my opinions and the extent of control can be debated. Unfortunately, the wealthy NRA lobby, a weak willed Senate, and a set of dogmatic children that dominate the House will ensure that nothing is done.

          • EricSteel

            You sir are a hypocrite of the first order. Your original comment was to decry Piers Morgan for resorting to ad hominem attacks. Look at your last comment. It is filled with ad hominem attacks. You are not presenting any arguments, all of your comments are filled with insults.

            For your information, the point I made “Gun control treats a gun purchased for peaceful purpose the same as a gun purchased for non-peaceful purpose” is not idiotic. It is a statement of fact.

            Gun bans make owning certain guns illegal, independent of the intent of the owner. A person who wants to own a Barrett .50 for competitive long range shooting is treated the same as a rogue sniper. That is a fact.

            Gun control makes the very ownership of a particular item illegal, independent of whether that item is used in the commission of a crime.

          • trejtt

            The fevered rantings of your paranoid mind don’t require a reply. Good luck.

          • EricSteel

            That is because you are not smart enough to respond. So you instead cop out and say that other’s arguments are beneath your dignity and not worthy of response.

            You may think you are a smart, sophisticated intellectual, but you are not. Your comments are filled with petty insults. Intelligent people do not need to resort to such trash.

            You may be fooling yourself, but you don’t fool me.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            How could anyone disagree with such a reasonable, non-inflammatory, well-thought-out reply…

          • trejtt

            Yeah, that must be it, I’m just not very bright ;-)

          • http://wizbangblog.com/ Baron Von Ottomatic

            Brightness or lack thereof aside, you are unwilling (unable?) to reply without calling people with whom you disagree: idiot, absolutist nut job, unthinking twerp, douchestain, and Wild Westers.

  • Wild_Willie

    I predict CNN will make alot of changes in the New Year, this cell phone hacking putz being one of them. ww