Morgan’s Lies Fuel Hatred, Divisions Worldwide

There’s an undeniable level of stupidity about Piers Morgan that extends beyond the extremes of palpability.

Morgan is a shill on display - a fool for the world to see, but just as his stupidity is overwhelmingly consuming, Morgan is also dangerous.  Whether he recognises it or not, his voice is culpable of creating and inciting both evil and hatred.

Morgan has become a figurehead in modern media for promoting skewed narratives that support Western imperialism and overlook the harsh realities of global conflicts. His platform, which claims to promote free speech and hard-hitting journalism, has instead perpetuated dangerous misinformation—particularly regarding the Ukraine-Russia war and the ongoing Israeli aggression against Lebanon and Palestine. It not only distorts facts but fuels racism, xenophobia, and the acceptance of genocidal policies, making him an increasingly dangerous voice in today’s media landscape.

His most recent interview with Professor John Mearsheimer underscores just how harmful his platform has become. Mearsheimer, a renowned international relations scholar, is well-known for his "realist" views on global power politics and his criticisms of NATO and US foreign policy. In the interview, Morgan consistently framed the Ukraine-Russia conflict in a simplistic, distorted narrative, disregarding the deeper historical and geopolitical context that Mearsheimer was attempting to highlight.

Rather than offer an insightful debate or drawing attention to the complexities of the situation, Morgan used his platform to further propagate misleading, inflammatory rhetoric that reinforces Western interventionist policies and vilifies Russia.

One of the most significant failings of commentators like Morgan is their refusal to present the full truth behind the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Far from being a simple case of Russian aggression, Russia’s actions in Ukraine were a direct response to the mounting threat posed by NATO’s and the US’s encroachment on its borders. It’s a critical fact Morgan consistently ignores in his oversimplified framing of the conflict.

The US and NATO's push to place military forces and infrastructure right on Russia’s doorstep was an existential threat to Russian security. For years, Russia warned against NATO's expansion and the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member—an outcome that would have effectively surrounded Russia with hostile forces. These warnings were repeatedly dismissed by the West, leaving Russia with no choice but to defend its national security interests. To portray Russia's actions as unprovoked aggression, as Morgan does in his interview with Mearsheimer, is a gross misrepresentation of the geopolitical realities at play.

Mearsheimer attempted to bring attention to these critical details, emphasising that NATO’s expansion and the West's disregard for Russian security concerns were pivotal factors in the escalation of the conflict. However, Morgan largely dismissed or downplayed these points, insisting on a narrative that positions Russia as the sole aggressor, while painting the West as innocent defenders of democracy. His one-sided portrayal not only distorts the truth but also exacerbates anti-Russian sentiment, contributing to the growing tide of Russophobia in the West.

By refusing to engage with the complexities of the situation, Morgan’s coverage encourages a dangerous form of jingoism that could escalate international tensions even further.

Morgan’s distortion of facts is not limited to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. When it comes to Israel’s ongoing aggression against Lebanon and Palestine, Morgan’s narrative is equally dangerous and one-sided. Israel’s repeated military assaults on Lebanon, particularly its frequent air raids, are acts of aggression that violate international law and terrorize civilians. These attacks are not defensive measures, as Morgan often suggests, but calculated efforts to maintain Israeli dominance in the region and suppress resistance to its occupation.

In his interview with Mearsheimer, Morgan missed yet another opportunity to delve into the realities of Israel’s constant military aggression, especially toward Lebanon and its pager terrorism attack. Hezbollah, a resistance movement that emerged in response to Israel's brutal occupation of Lebanon, is often vilified in Western media as a terrorist organisation. In reality, Hezbollah plays a critical role in defending Lebanon's sovereignty and protecting Palestinian civilians from Israel’s ongoing atrocities. However, Morgan, like much of the Western media, continues to downplay Israel's repeated violations of Lebanese and Palestinian rights while framing any act of defense by Hezbollah or Palestinian resistance as terrorism.

By refusing to acknowledge Israel’s role as an aggressor, Morgan perpetuates a disturbingly dangerous narrative that dehumanises Palestinians and Lebanese civilians. His interview with Mearsheimer could have explored the nuances of Hezbollah’s role in defending Lebanon and the reasons behind Palestinian resistance, but instead, Morgan clung to simplistic, inflammatory rhetoric that ignores the root causes of the conflict.

But perhaps the most glaring failure of Morgan’s commentary lies in his treatment of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. The situation in Gaza is not merely a conflict—it is a genocide. Israel’s blockade of Gaza, combined with its frequent military assaults, has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern history. The people of Gaza are living in an open-air prison, subjected to continuous airstrikes, economic deprivation, and systemic violence. Yet Morgan consistently downplays this reality, framing Palestinian resistance as terrorism while ignoring the root causes of their struggle.

Mearsheimer's academic perspective, which could have illuminated the broader context of Israeli apartheid and the genocide in Gaza, was side-stepped in the interview. Morgan's refusal to discuss or even acknowledge Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza highlights how his platform is complicit in the normalisation of war crimes. By choosing to frame Palestinians as aggressors without addressing the overwhelming brutality they face, Morgan erases the suffering of millions and contributes to the ongoing global indifference to Palestinian genocide.

The most troubling aspect of Morgan’s media presence is the influence he wields over public opinion. His platform reaches millions, and his narratives are often accepted without question by his audience. By presenting biased and untruthful accounts of these complex geopolitical issues, Morgan is not just misleading his viewers—he is helping to shape a dangerous and racist worldview that fuels hatred and division.

Morgan’s most recent interview with Mearsheimer serves as a prime example of how media figures like him perpetuate dangerously simplified narratives that contribute to global instability. His refusal to engage with the real causes of the Ukraine-Russia conflict or acknowledge the legitimacy of Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements only serves to reinforce Western imperialist agendas and dehumanise those who suffer under occupation and aggression.

Morgan’s one-sided portrayal of Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine distorts the truth in ways that dehumanize entire populations. His rhetoric stokes anti-Russian sentiment, fuels Islamophobia, and downplays the ongoing genocide in Gaza. This kind of reporting is not just irresponsible—it is dangerous.

At a time when the media plays such a critical role in shaping global debate, it’s imperative Morgan be held accountable for the lies and half-truths he propagates. His influence isn’t merely a matter of entertainment; it has real-world consequences, contributing to the radicalisation of public opinion and the perpetuation of violence and injustice.

The remedy for voices like Morgan is responsible journalism—journalism that presents the full picture, acknowledges the complexities of geopolitical conflicts, and refuses to simplify issues into good-versus-evil narratives. The role of the media should be to inform, not to incite hatred or support imperialist agendas.