The most depressing thing, the most unforgivable, is that the majority Piers Morgan’s viewership is, in all likelihood, the self-described “politically intrigued” of us, having our adult sensibilities molested much as MrBeast does those of our children. This is unquantifiable amounts of attention and cultivation being poured down an audiovisual toilet drain.
Actually, nah, it’s the fact that his has become, since Oct 7th, the largest and most talked-about forum of political “exchange” on the whole net, to which the likes of Chomsky and Finkelstein have found it necessary to pay visitation, so as not to have their ideas go extinct along with them.
One of the great C.U. Next Tuesdays of our time, without a doubt. Very small eyes, too. I’ve always thought Russell Brand (also: small eyes!) was the worst man in media, but maybe I just haven’t taken in enough Piers…
20 years ago Charlie Brooker defined a Piersonality as someone who gained wealth and fame purely through making people hate them. And somehow he's still here.
Though I'm not sure the definition is entirely accurate - the uncomfortable truth may be that most people don't differentiate between posh, loud, self-important people on the basis of the content of their constant verbiage, they just look at a group of posh, loud, self-important people, see who's the poshest, loudest and most self-important, and then assume that he and the things he's associated with are likely to be high status, and therefore safe to find enjoyable. Piers hasn't got rich by being objectionable; he's got rich by irritating high status people, and appearing high status to the rest, while shoveling everyone the sort of pablum humans will always go for.
And of course those of us who are posh, loud and opinionated have our own Piersonalities. Often horrific to an extent that Piers could never be, appalling and worthless as the content he produces unquestionably is.
I disagree with this assessment and believe his show is worth a watch. Sometimes there is a very good exchange of ideas. It is often entertaining. It is always spirited. He does invite on some of the most obnoxious people you can imagine, but there are usually one or two measured people with educated viewpoints. I also don’t see him as a sociopath. He does have a high tolerance for chaos.
Apparently disagreeing with Mr. Sixsmith is the reason Mr. Morgan is referred to as a sociopath. Not the DSM or ICD definition but I guess it works for him
The most depressing thing, the most unforgivable, is that the majority Piers Morgan’s viewership is, in all likelihood, the self-described “politically intrigued” of us, having our adult sensibilities molested much as MrBeast does those of our children. This is unquantifiable amounts of attention and cultivation being poured down an audiovisual toilet drain.
Actually, nah, it’s the fact that his has become, since Oct 7th, the largest and most talked-about forum of political “exchange” on the whole net, to which the likes of Chomsky and Finkelstein have found it necessary to pay visitation, so as not to have their ideas go extinct along with them.
Of course it's terrible, but since all politics has essentially become a drama, this sort of an extreme version of the genre is predictable.
One of the great C.U. Next Tuesdays of our time, without a doubt. Very small eyes, too. I’ve always thought Russell Brand (also: small eyes!) was the worst man in media, but maybe I just haven’t taken in enough Piers…
20 years ago Charlie Brooker defined a Piersonality as someone who gained wealth and fame purely through making people hate them. And somehow he's still here.
Though I'm not sure the definition is entirely accurate - the uncomfortable truth may be that most people don't differentiate between posh, loud, self-important people on the basis of the content of their constant verbiage, they just look at a group of posh, loud, self-important people, see who's the poshest, loudest and most self-important, and then assume that he and the things he's associated with are likely to be high status, and therefore safe to find enjoyable. Piers hasn't got rich by being objectionable; he's got rich by irritating high status people, and appearing high status to the rest, while shoveling everyone the sort of pablum humans will always go for.
And of course those of us who are posh, loud and opinionated have our own Piersonalities. Often horrific to an extent that Piers could never be, appalling and worthless as the content he produces unquestionably is.
Isn’t the point of the Overton window that it doesn’t open but moves? But if it did open, then where would we be? Through the Overton Piers Glass?
I thought it could be more open or more closed, but having looked up Mr Overton (which I'd never bothered to do before) you could be right.
Far-right even, in a left moving Overtonian world.
I disagree with this assessment and believe his show is worth a watch. Sometimes there is a very good exchange of ideas. It is often entertaining. It is always spirited. He does invite on some of the most obnoxious people you can imagine, but there are usually one or two measured people with educated viewpoints. I also don’t see him as a sociopath. He does have a high tolerance for chaos.
Apparently disagreeing with Mr. Sixsmith is the reason Mr. Morgan is referred to as a sociopath. Not the DSM or ICD definition but I guess it works for him
Thanks for saving me the effort of having to watch this and work it out for myself.