Piers Morgan, Jason Whitlock, and Sean Spicer debate Joy Reid's firing as part of a trend targeting non-white hosts while defending Trump's press pool restrictions against claims of censorship. They critique MSNBC's post-election credibility regarding Kamala Harris and analyze Jake Tapper's book alleging Biden's cognitive decline, highlighting hypocrisy in dismissing right-wing claims. The discussion extends to Alec Baldwin's reality show image rehabilitation and the Tate brothers' escape from Romania to Florida amid sex trafficking charges, questioning potential Trump administration involvement. Ultimately, the episode underscores deepening media polarization and skepticism toward political narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Joy Reed and the Race Baiting Accusation00:03:10
My show had value and that I'm sorry.
Both of our non-white hosts in primetime are losing their shows.
Single tier white woman tears happening right here.
So let me just say to Megan Keller, go fuck yourself.
I think Joy Reed is one of the biggest race baiters in the history of American television.
There's only so many times you can, you know, play that shtick over and over again without people getting tired of it.
Frankly, if Joy Reed were white and the tables were flipped, I'm sure she would last about all of one show.
I think audiences start to become more cynical about where they're getting their information.
The whole attack on her network was predicated on an absolute falsehood.
No, black people are not interchangeable.
And so I can't say, well, I got rid of peers, but here's another one.
President Trump's election literature is propelled by new media, but he still has his sights firmly set on settling scores of the legacy press.
AB News, ABC News, paid $15 million to settle a defamation suit.
Paramount may now settle a $20 billion lawsuit over a 60-minute interview with Carmela Harris that Trump says was edited to make her look smarter.
And this week, MSNBC fired Joy Reed, one of Trump's fiercest critics, who is best known for commentary like this.
The race lady?
Why would they call me that?
Is this really about me fixating on race, or is it about you fixating on race?
Donald Trump wants to never let black and brown folk up off the mat.
Evident what they mean by DEI, right?
Why not just say what you mean?
He can't stand black people.
We get it.
You've been heard.
Are you committed to naming a black woman as your vice presidential running mate?
They wanted to go after the brown people too, because of course that is their other target.
Well, now Donald Trump has sparked uproar among DC journalists by taking control of the official press pool.
The White House Correspondents Association has decided who gets special access to presidential events and Air Force One for more than a century.
But now the White House itself will make the final call, promising to add podcasters and streamers to the rotation.
And in a bombshell announcement, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos said the newspaper's opinion pages will now be limited to the defense of only two things, personal liberties and free markets.
Trump supporters say mainstream media is blatedly catching up with public opinion as it fights to remain relevant.
Critics say it's a chilling assault on the free press.
We'll hate to debate all this.
Executive producer and host of The Young Turks, Anna Kasperian, the former White House press secretary and host of the Sean Spicer show, Sean Spicer, the host of Met News, Mark Lamont Hill, and from Fearless with Jason Whitlock, Jason Whitlock.
Well, welcome to all of you.
Let me start.
I'm sorry, I've missed one.
But last and by no means as unimportant as I may have just made you seem, Natalie, the co-host and White House correspondent for Steve Bannon's War Room, Natalie Winters.
Unusually, there are five of you because we just knew you'd all be brilliant.
So we're having you all today.
So Natalie, welcome to you as well.
Okay, let's get into this.
Jason Whitlock, it seemed to me watching MSNBC rarely, because I found it bad for my blood pressure, that Joy Reed was just about the single biggest, worst race baiter in the history of American cable news.
MSNBC's Crisis of Confidence After Election00:10:34
And it's not even close.
Your thoughts?
Totally agree with you, Piers.
Joy Reed's job, as a lot of black women on MSNBC or CNN, it's their job to define everything along racial lines and to continue to explain to the American public that if you disagree with the Democratic Party, you're racist.
And it doesn't matter what position you take, if you're anti-abortion and pro-life, well, you must be racist because you want to stop Planned Parenthood from killing black babies at an incredible rate.
So it was Joy Reed's job to paint everything that Republicans or conservatives or evangelicals do as racist, and people happen to fall for that trap.
She's lost some credibility, I think, on the other side of November 5th, and they're going to replace her with people that will do the exact same job, but they'll be less expensive.
But yeah, I think Joy Reed is one of the biggest race baiters in the history of American television.
That's really the only skill she had to offer, and so she offered it up.
And what is utterly ironic is that following her departure, her ratings sucked, by the way.
They were terrible.
Following her departure, Rachel Maddow, the biggest star at MSNBC, then accused her own bosses, NBC, of racism.
Let's take a look.
I love everything about her.
I have learned so much from her.
I have so much more to learn from her.
I do not want to lose her as a colleague here at MSNBC.
And personally, I think it is a bad mistake to let her walk out the door.
It is not my call, and I understand that, but that's what I think.
I will tell you, it is also unnerving to see that on a network where we've got two, count them two, non-white hosts in primetime, both of our non-white hosts in primetime are losing their shows, as is Katie Fang on the weekend.
And that feels worse than bad.
So Martin Lamont Hill, what's utterly bizarre about that rant from Rachel Maddow is that Joy Reed is being replaced on her show by not one person of color, but three.
Two African Americans and a Latino.
Isn't that a good thing?
Isn't it the complete opposite of what she just told her viewers?
In Rachel's monologue, which I'm not sure why you called it a rant, but in her monologue, she said that it was a mistake to lose Joy.
And prior to the part that you cut from, she explained Joy's talent.
She explained why it was a loss.
She never called the network racist.
I mean, I understand that that's your interpretation.
She did.
She said that the two people of color in primetime were going, but she didn't point out that one of them is being replaced by three people of color.
Right.
So the whole statement, the whole attack on her network was predicated on an absolute falsehood, which is that somehow they're taking the black people away.
And this is awful.
It's racist was the clear insinuation.
Right.
And I was trying to make a nuanced point.
And if you allow me to finish the point uninterrupted as you allow Jason to, you'll hear it.
I promise I won't go on a rant.
What I'm saying is you can have a critique of someone making a mistake along the lines of race without them being racist.
For example, saying, hey, we need racial representation on the show is to say that, hey, this is a network that has a huge black base, a huge black woman base.
Hey, maybe it makes sense to have a popular black woman host stay on the show.
That's her argument.
There's an argument against it for ratings.
I'm not making a case right now one way or the other on that point.
My point more precisely is it's not necessarily racist or you're not necessarily accusing someone of racism to say that they made a mistake along the lines of race.
That's all I'm saying.
And no, black people are not interchangeable.
So even if I were to replace you, Piers, with another British white male host, not everybody has your talent.
Not everybody has your knack for deep listening and careful listening.
And so I can't say, well, I got rid of Piers, but here's another one.
And I like the replacements, but I don't think that they're the same.
And then finally here, you know, Joy Ann Reed, just to kind of what Jason said, to say she doesn't have any other talent, I think is just untrue.
She has the fancy Harvard degree.
She's an experienced journalist, and she has deep insights that she offers.
Her show isn't about being a race baiter.
This is the problem that I see that's the biggest.
And that is that when someone responds to a race-based conversation, somehow they become the racist.
She's responding to the cutting of DEI.
She's responding to people saying DEI stands for didn't earn it.
She's responding to people cutting affirmative action.
All of that is race talk and race-based policy.
She's critiquing the Republican response to race policy.
And they're saying, look, she brought up race.
No, she's pointing out the problem with how they're dealing with race.
Okay, let me bring in Sean Spicer, who's been smirking throughout your commentary there.
Sean, your thoughts on this.
Well, first of all, it's awful rich that Rachel Maddow, who works one day a week and makes $25 million, has some huge concern for Joy Reid.
If you care about your friend that much and her well-being, offer one of the 25 million that you're getting to make to work one day a week to her.
Second, I mean, with all due respect, she's either, if she were that popular, the ratings would reflect it.
Her show was not being watched.
People were tuning it out, and it was for a reason.
They didn't like the topics.
They didn't like her, but it doesn't matter.
At the end of the day, it's a business, and the business is to attract advertisers that make the network money.
Clearly, that was not the case.
If people really think you're that good at what you do, then they tune in.
The audience grows or it stays stagnant.
But in her case, it was on a massive decline.
And that says that they didn't like her.
They didn't like her topics.
They didn't like what she was talking about.
And it's pretty obvious that there's only so many times you can, you know, play that shtick over and over again without people getting tired of it.
I think that the ratings reflected that.
Yeah, I mean, Natalie Winters, there's no doubt.
I mean, Fox has been absolutely crushing everyone in cable news now.
They averaged 3 million viewers in prime time in the latest numbers, up 50% from the same month last year.
MSNBC averaged 1.1 million, down 16%.
CNN, half a million, pretty much, down 3%.
And in Joy Reid's case, apparently the ratings on Tuesday without her jumped 16% just by not having her sitting there, which doesn't entirely surprise me because whenever I had the misfortune to catch her, she was incredibly incendiary in her race baiting.
There was just no other way to describe it.
I mean, Mark's being very charitable in trying to defend her, only ever responding to what you think were race issues.
And therefore, if you criticize her, you yourself are being racist.
But come on.
She'd look for every opportunity she could possibly find to accuse everybody who wasn't her skin color of racism.
Piers, can you know one time one topic that she inflicted?
And I would just add, even though MSNBC, I think they are overdosing on critical race theory, they find racism in every single corner, in every single story.
And frankly, if Joy Reed were white and the tables were flipped and she was saying these things about people of color, I'm sure she would last about all of one show on cable news.
But I think, frankly, this discussion, I think it sort of misses the mark.
I think the reason why a lot of the MSNBC viewership has been absolutely cratering, in part, people don't buy into the ad hominem attacks.
Just look at the election results.
But this is a network that has lied to their audience day after day, show after show, not only about how President Trump is a threat to democracy, how he's an autocrat and authoritarian, and we're witnessing a takeover, a hostile takeover of this country,
but they're sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place because in the same breath, right, where they preach the idea of democratically elected representatives and they're the staunch defenders of democracy, they're now actively opposing and try to use sort of outside of the system tactics to oppose and essentially take down a democratically elected president.
So their sort of grassroots, really hardcore base viewership, they feel lied to.
That's why they're abandoning.
And your average American viewer doesn't want to partake in the sort of color revolution tactics and propaganda that they're pushing to smear President Trump with.
And also, I think, you know, when Mika and Joe went down to see Trump at Mur-a-Lago, I think that was seen by a lot of MSNBC viewers as a real betrayal.
You know, for whatever good intentions they did it, I just think if you call someone a fascist for year after year after year, and then you go and have tea with them, it's not an easy thing to explain to your viewers.
Anna, I mean, I want to play you a clip.
This is where Megan Kelly says her commentary about this, and then Don Lemon responded.
The big news tonight will be Joy Reed's final show on MSNBC.
Single-tier white woman tears happening right here, Joy.
She was officially fired over the weekend because she's a racist, horrible news anchor with no ratings.
The worst person on television was fired from NBC in the Today Show a few years ago, and that's Megan Kelly.
So let me just say to Megan Kelly, in my 30-some years as a journalist and my 50-some years as a person of color, go fuck yourself.
Okay.
I do love the way that Don positions himself as the antidote to toxicity and then tells people to go fuck themselves.
But Anna, look, it's all blowing up this.
I do think it's interesting that MSNBC, having gone all in on Kamala Harris and all out on Trump, because of the election result, now seem to be in some kind of crisis of confidence about what they should be.
What do you think of it?
Well, I actually think that, you know, the obsession over the conversation on race and race baiting kind of misses the mark on what I think MSNBC is really vulnerable on, and that's the issue of trust and credibility among audience members or anyone who might be considering MSNBC as a news source.
The Trust Deficit at Cable News Networks00:06:45
So for instance, Kamala Harris did not run a flawless campaign.
Not by a long shot.
Okay, her campaign was very flawed.
It did not have a focused message.
She was taking advice from, you know, corporate executives within her family, and she moved off of the economic issues that obviously voters consistently communicated through polling they cared the most about.
And so when she goes on camera and says that Kamala Harris ran a flawless campaign after the election, in which Donald Trump wins all the swing states in the popular vote, I think audiences start to become more cynical about where they're getting their information.
And so a lot of lies were kind of debunked in the aftermath of the election.
And when I say lies, I'm specifically referring to how fantastic the Democratic Party is, how they really have a vision for the future, how flawless Kamala Harris is.
You know, even though the aggregate of polls showed that she was trailing Donald Trump, we kept hearing all of these rosy news reports about how she was doing fantastic.
And so I think the Democratic Party and the left in general really needs to have a moment of self-reflection instead of seeking out news content that validates everything that they believe and want to hear.
And that's honestly the biggest flaw and down, you know, downside of the Democratic Party at the moment.
And people like Joy Reid, unfortunately, you know, foster that kind of environment that made them think, no, no, no, we're killing it.
We're doing great.
Now, I don't think that MSNBC has learned the right lessons because they're basically replacing Joy Reed's hour with other individuals who are never Trump Democrats, although Michael Steele used to be the head of the Republican National Committee, but nonetheless, he hates Trump.
And so they're going to keep focusing on uplifting Democrats that I think really need to get back in touch with the American people and understand what their genuine concerns are.
They're not doing that right now.
I think they're looking for other mouthpieces that are willing to just tell them what they want to hear.
Mark, you're shaking your head.
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief podcast.
If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon.
And on the weekend, we go longer with the PBB Situation Report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcast.
Also, on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
They're also hiring Eugene Daniels, who was a Kamala fanboy from Politico, to go over there and do this.
So they're doubling down on stupid.
They just, I mean, I think it was said earlier, they're just getting cheaper versions, right?
So Joy Reid probably signed her contract when MSNBC was ascent.
It's now flailing and falling apart financially and otherwise.
So they're going in and getting cheaper versions of stupid.
Yeah, and it's interesting to watch CNN where Scott Jennings appears as the Republican voice and basically takes on sometimes three, four liberals at the same time and often eats them all for breakfast.
But it's very entertaining to watch.
And Mark, you know, you're shaking your head, but the problem I have with MSNBC, it's all completely one-way traffic.
They're just not interested in having anybody on there who differs from the view that Trump's the devil and that's the end of it.
Whereas I think what's happening at CNN with Scott Jennings is quite interesting.
It's more interesting to watch.
You know, I like on this show, for example, as we're seeing right now, to have people with all different voices.
The idea you only have one type of voice, particularly when you've just taken a massive beating with that voice in the election, it seems to me just bad business, isn't it?
No.
To answer your question, the reason I was shaking my head was because it's simply not accurate what the person before me said.
This idea that Joy Ann Reed was saying that the Democratic Party is perfect and that they made no mistakes and that all the campaigns were flawless.
That's simply not factual.
Now, I happen to believe that the Democratic Party made tons of mistakes.
And I think MSNBC.
Kamala Harris's campaign was flawless.
Right.
So just, again, hear me out, and then you can disagree.
We can agree.
Who knows?
Maybe if you hear me, you may find out you agree with me.
Kamala Harris was one of the few people who was critical of the Biden administration's position on Gaza.
She was one of the few people, along with Ayman Mohedine and Mehdi Hesson last year before he was fired, who spoke out against what the Biden slash Harris administration did.
She also spoke out against Kamala's response to it.
I agree with you that they were too laudatory of the Kamala Harris campaign.
And I agree with you that in general, they haven't done a sufficient autopsy of the Democratic Party, much less the Harris campaign, which I think could not have won anyway.
I don't think she was a strong candidate, and I don't think she had a strong message to the American people.
I suspect we agree on that.
Where I disagree with you is that Kamala Harris was not unwilling to be critical.
Excuse me, Joy Ann Reed was not unwilling to be critical of the party.
I think the problem is that MSNBC in general is a left-wing slash liberal really organ or political organ.
Piers, no, I don't think that that is inherently problematic.
Donald Trump lost big the last election and Fox News didn't hire me.
You know, Fox News double down and hire more people.
But Fox News have people like Jessica Talov on the five and stuff.
They will regularly have people on the left to give the other side.
And actually, it's just more interesting.
And that's fine.
You're entitled to find Fox News more interesting.
I happen to not find MSNBC interesting at all, so I'm not caving for MSNBC here.
What I'm saying is that news outlets in general have a point of view, even ones that pretend that they don't.
And I don't want to single MSNBC out as if they're the outlier ideological channel and the other ones are straight news.
Nobody is straight news anymore.
You know, that's true, but I think they're the only ones.
MSNBC displays it well.
They're the only ones who pretty much never have a conservative, in other words, an opposite voice.
And they're also their business model sucks.
I mean, they're failing.
That's the point.
Fox, you can't create.
I mean, if you don't like Fox, that's fine.
But at the end of the day, it's growing.
So they're doing something right as a business.
MSNBC, even if you ideologically, I agree with Mark on that, but if it worked for them, then go for it.
Make money.
It's not.
And that's the point.
At some point, the executives have to say, hey, you're not doing your job, which is we're supposed to make money as a company, as a business.
So do something.
Listen, it's going to be not working.
Double Standards in Media Access and Style00:16:04
With all due respect, Sean, you're all good.
With all due respect, Sean, that's a strong man.
That's a strong man, Sean.
I'm not disputing that companies make money.
I'm not disputing that MSNBC is doing a sucky job.
I'm not disputing that MSNBC's ratings are bad and that they have to make a different decision when the ratings are bad.
I agree with all of those things, despite your arguments here.
I'm saying that one, Joy Ann Reid is not singular in that way.
Everybody in MSNBC, this side of Rachel Madhouse, sucks.
So when you fire somebody at Rachel Madow for sucking, when you fire somebody at MSNBC for sucking, it's somewhat of an arbitrary choice.
I'm saying, who are we choosing and why?
And I'm making a financial decision.
What do we replace them with?
Okay, listen, I want to move on.
I want to move on.
The only thing I would dispute, Mark, that you've said is when you claim that Rachel wasn't playing the race card was when she attacked the network.
She clearly was and was trying to make out that somehow.
I didn't say that.
I said she called them racist.
Hang on, hang on.
I said she didn't call them racist.
I said she didn't call them racist.
I'm not going to let you miss Reed.
Why else would she invoke?
Why else would she invoke Joy Reed's skin color if she having been removed effectively because she was black, she was saying, when she's been replaced by three people to colour?
It was preposterous.
Anyway, look, let's move on.
No, you've misrepresented the position.
It's fine.
It's done 20 minutes on this.
It's more than I want to spend on MSNBC because they're getting the biggest audience right now they've ever had.
So let's move on.
To the press pool purge.
So let's take a shot here of the announcement.
As you all know, for decades, a group of DC-based journalists, the White House Correspondents Association, has long dictated which journalists get to ask questions of the President of the United States in these most intimate spaces.
Not anymore.
I am proud to announce that we are going to give the power back to the people who read your papers, who watch your television shows, and who listen to your radio stations.
Moving forward, the White House press pool will be determined by the White House press team.
Legacy outlets who have participated in the press pool for decades will still be allowed to join, fear not.
But we will also be offering the privilege to well-deserving outlets who have never been allowed to share in this awesome responsibility.
Schultz by sir, what's your honest reaction to this?
Because I'm going to say, as I said.
I think it's fantastic.
Oh, absolutely.
But just so the audience understands, there's two things to know.
Number one, the White House Correspondents Association determines, has a set of criteria who can join it.
And if you can't join it, they limit that by what you do for a living, whether your financial interests, your transparency with your company, there's a set of criteria.
You can go on their website and read it.
So, for example, I tried to join when I went to Newsmax.
They rejected my application.
So they get to determine who's in it.
And then what happens is there's a list with what Caroline's referring to there is the pool.
So there's, in smaller instances, not in the briefing room, obviously, the Oval Office, Air Force One.
There is a pool.
What is that?
one or two print wire reporters, cameras, photographers, and they among themselves, the White House Correspondents Association will rotate NBC, ABC News, Fox, whatever.
And so every day they take a different turn, then they disseminate that information to the rest of the media outlets.
So the White House correspondence restricts who can be part of that, thereby limiting who can go to the Oval Office or Air Force One.
What Caroline announced there was they get to stay part of it, right?
So you're still going to have NBC and ABC, but it's going to be augmented.
They're going to allow a new media seat.
They're going to add additional cameramen.
This is actually more transparency, more media access, more appreciation for the White House correspondents.
Under the Biden administration, they cut 440 press passes from independent journalisms, and the White House Correspondents Association said nothing.
These people don't care about press access.
They don't care about the First Amendment.
They care about controlling what the American people see, read, and hear by limiting who has access.
And they're pissed that somebody now actually outside of them can go into the Oval Office or on Air Force One and actually disseminate information bias.
Yeah, listen, I don't actually have any objection to that for the reasons you've articulated very well.
But the problem I do have is with the Associated Press getting barred from entering the Oval Office or traveling on Air Force One because they refuse to use the new terminology Gulf of America for the Gulf of Mexico as it was known before Donald Trump renamed it.
And their position is they're an international organization, which they clearly indisputably are, and that many places outside of America continue to call it Gulf of Mexico, as it's been known historically.
Why should they be barred for that?
Yeah.
Well, it's actually much broader.
It has to do with their whole style book, how they use, they mandate what people, what other news organizations use.
So they would start saying, we're going to capitalize the word black, but not white.
We're going to use gender affirming care.
We're going to use pronouns.
They actually dictate everything that a lot of media associations and frankly, even U.S. government outlets use based on the style book.
So here's the thing that people have to remember.
The Associated Press still has their press passes.
They're still in the White House briefing room.
But the invitation to go into the president's office, they've restricted.
That's not freedom of the freedom of the press is allowing them to write what they want, to say what they want, and they still enjoy all of that.
They enjoy full access to the White House briefing room.
All their correspondents have their pass.
The president has a right to decide who goes into his office.
I can't walk into the Associated Press's office just because I have a First Amendment right to say things.
This is ridiculous.
They get to decide who goes into his office.
That's his prerogative.
Okay, Mark, it's ridiculous, apparently, but you're not having it.
The president's office isn't like walking into my office or Sean's office.
That's sort of a dishonest comparison.
At the end of the day, we want to make sure that the...
Sure, sure.
The White House, Trump's office, and more broadly, the White House, is not just a space.
It's a signpost of access to democracy, access to the political process.
And that's what we're concerned about.
I agree with you that press freedom is about being able to write what you want without pressure, without any type of punishment.
I think the issue here is if different people have different access, levels of access, based on their style guide, based on what their political persuasion is, it encourages or incentivizes people to make certain choices versus others.
At the end of the day here, I'm not even concerned about Trump.
I'll be honest with you.
I mean, I am concerned about Trump, but that's not my biggest concern.
My concern here is I don't want particular political administrations, whether they're Democrat or Republican, making decisions about who comprises a press corps, who gets into certain rooms and who doesn't.
Because even if you trust Trump completely, or even if you trust the next president completely, there will be political organizations and political administrations who we cannot trust.
And when that happens, I don't want them to be the deciders.
All right, let me bring in, let me bring in, Jason.
Here's a point.
Hang on, hang on.
Hang on, short.
If you agree with everything that Mark said, which is, I think, very fair points, then where was this concern when the last administration cut 440 passes of journalists?
Where was the concern when the White House correspondents restricted anyone else from the United States?
Yeah, you made that point.
I love this, but these are not, then where was all of the statements?
I think there is a double standard.
I agree with you.
And actually, you know, the biggest attacker.
I don't think that's a good question.
Hang on, hang on, hang on a minute.
But we should have been concerned.
All right, the biggest attacker on journalism and journalistic rights actually was Barack Obama, historically.
He did more to erode the rights of journalists than anyone.
Never mind Trump.
Let me bring in Anna here.
I mean, it's a tricky area.
What was clear is this extraordinary stat according to the National Journal.
President Trump has taken over 1,000 questions from reporters in his first month of a second term compared to Biden 141 and Obama 161.
So this idea that he's not the most transparent president in modern times is for the birds.
He clearly is.
People may not like what he's saying, but he's taking questions from pretty much anyone all the time.
Well, I'm about to say things that will upset everyone on each side of the political aisle because honestly, I think that there are bad actors on both sides.
So for instance, there was a lack of transparency under the Biden administration, and that lack of transparency had to do with the fact that he was suffering from mental decline and everyone around him was hiding him from the public.
So he didn't have nearly enough press briefings.
They were kind of evasive with important questions.
And that cover-up ultimately destroyed the Democratic Party, certainly in the last election cycle.
Now, in regard to Donald Trump, I agree that it is a good thing to include members of independent media, new media.
I think that's generally speaking a great thing.
I would be far more celebratory if Donald Trump wasn't so devastatingly petty and also retaliatory against media that doesn't serve his interests or do exactly what he wants.
So the AP is a good example.
I think another example is this lawsuit against 60 Minutes.
Obviously, when you're airing an interview on television, you have time constraints.
You have to cut down on some of the content or the interview answers so it fits in so you can go to break.
And I hate that model.
I think Live Linear has a lot of downfalls and that's one of them.
But the idea that they intentionally edited her to make Kamala Harris sound better is laughable to me because whether it's the word salad answer on what's happening in Israel and Gaza or the shortened answer, I don't think she really particularly had a great answer.
It didn't make her look good.
And Trump won the election.
What are you doing suing 60 Minutes over this?
That's insanity.
Well, I think you do.
I think if you face.
Yeah, look, I think if you face as he did, if you face two years of relentless bullshit about Russia collusion, you probably got a very, very cynical view of the way the very liberal skewed mainstream media has behaved towards you.
And Trump, you know, he's got a, I always say he has the thinnest skin I've ever met and the thickest.
He can take stuff that would destroy anybody else, but he's going to react to absolutely every slight that anyone imposes on him.
It's just his nature.
He ain't going to change at 78.
I can tell you.
I understand what you're saying.
Pierce, I understand what you're saying, but understand that, you know, do we value our Constitution or not?
Do we value freedom of the press or not?
Do we value the idea that the government cannot retaliate against you over your speech in America?
I value those things.
And it's really important for the president through his actions to prove that he also values.
Okay, Jason, you've been waiting patiently.
What's your view of this?
He's proven a million times that he values the freedom of the press.
The man went to the NABJ convention, sat down in front of two black women and probably a gay black man, I can't remember, went into the den with the people that hate him the most and took all their questions.
They were late getting on stage, late showing up.
He took all their questions.
The man is fearless and he has every right to punch back.
The Associated Press is associated propaganda.
It is the enemy of America.
Donald Trump's not lying there.
The Associated Press is part of this global establishment that wants to destroy American freedoms.
And this man has every right to punch back.
They need to be hit in the mouth.
They lie every day.
They distort every day.
They're part of, again, I've heard you all say, hey, this isn't about race.
Yes, it is.
The Associated Press and all the American media have been pulling a racial hoax on voters and the American citizens for 60 straight years.
If you don't support these left-wing propaganda deals, all of it, hook, line, and sinker, you're a racist.
And there's no greater smear.
Nothing can hurt your economic viability, opportunities in the media, opportunities just to be seen as a normal citizen than these leftists calling you a racist for supporting the Constitution and just common sense.
I've got to say, I've got to say, I don't eat up the Associated Propaganda.
I just don't know the world.
I don't think the Associated Press is the biggest threat America faces right now.
Having run a national newspaper in the UK for 10 years, the AP, it has its issues like all these agencies, but actually they do a pretty good, pretty impartial job most of the time.
I think it's been wildly exaggerated that they're some kind of media version of ISIS.
But let me bring in Natalie here because I just want to talk to Natalie about the other thing that's come out, which is Jeff Bezos of the Washington Post, who emailed all employees to say that we're going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars, personal liberties and free markets.
We'll cover other topics too, of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
He said, I'm of America and for America and proud to be so.
Our country didn't get here by being typical.
And a big part of America's success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else.
Freedom is ethical.
It minimizes coercion and practical.
It drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.
Now, critics have said this is another example of a tech bro-laguk bending the knee to Trump, smothering press freedom and so on.
I just wonder why he would want to do this.
If you're owning a national newspaper in America, why would you publicly announce that you're going to actively not have views contrary to the view that you hold?
Well, Piers, as a newly minted member of this whole new media initiative that the White House is rolling out, I would like to just real quickly say one thing, and that is that this whole narrative that it's the White House Correspondents Association that is the victim in all of this, it's the American people.
And what you're hearing is continued victim blaming coming out of these legacy media outlets who not just for the last four years of Joe Biden totally did not cover anything to do with his mental cognitive capacities and capabilities being absolutely zero, but they colluded with the Biden White House, with big tech to censor Americans who dared to speak out about COVID, about vaccines, about election fraud, about every single issue.
So spare me the performative activism that these people care about free speech or freedom of the press.
And frankly, I find it quite ironic, if not hypocritical, that Mark Lamont Hill, who I believe is on the payroll of Al Jazeera, so the Qatari government wants to sit there and say that free speech and freedom of the press is so important.
I'd suggest that you look up that country's rules when it comes to freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.
It's not that great.
I'd invite you to criticize Qatar on air, but you probably won't because you lose your paycheck.
Give me an example of that.
Give me an example of that.
You just said, what is your issue with Qatar's stance on free speech?
Since you're criticizing the Qatari government's position on free press, what is it?
I dare you to criticize the migrant workers that they used to build the stadium.
No, no, no, we're talking about free speech.
I'll tell you what.
Hang on, hang on.
No, because you suggested that I haven't done that.
I've got an answer for you.
I have publicly, not only have I publicly criticized the guest worker program of Qatar, and I specifically interviewed a Kenyan worker who had been exploited by the Qatari government, and I have publicly been critical of the Qatari government.
So let's not say, I dare you do that.
I've done that.
But the question here was about press freedom.
You said that there's a specific issue you have with Qatari press freedom that I somehow won't speak out again.
What is your issue with Qatari press freedom?
I suspect you don't actually understand Qatari press freedom, but you're making a talking that you can't unconvention.
So please, instead of pivoting to migrant workers, please tell me what is your issue.
Free Speech Versus Human Rights Criticism00:14:56
170 when it comes to press freedom in the entire world.
I can tell you, Natalie, Natalie, the ruling family, it's not a problem.
Hang on, time out.
Natalie, just for what it's worth, I actually criticized high-level Qatari officials on this show in Qatar during the World Cup about the migrant worker issue at the World Cup.
And nobody in Qatar had any problem with it.
So this idea that they suppress that kind of criticism, they don't even suppress it when you're there doing it on air from Qatar.
So I think that is a misunderstanding.
I'm not exactly sure that you guys want to be dying on the hill of Qatari press freedom.
I'm pretty sure, what was it, the latest rocket, 130 out of 170 countries when it comes to press freedom.
You can look at them.
I mean, it's an autocratic regime.
All right, let me ask you, let me ask you.
I want to move on to this, which is I want to move on to the Washington Post.
Sean Spicer, Washington Post, I'm uncomfortable about this.
I'll be honest with you.
I don't think Jeff Bezos should have done this.
I think it's one thing to have subliminal influence or your editor to do it quietly and you do it like fine.
But to actually publicly announce the Washington Post, one of the great papers in America, is no longer going to run contrary views on its opinion pages against the views or positions that the owner's taken.
I think that's a very slippery road.
What do you think?
Well, this goes back to the conversation we're having with MSNBC, where it's a business decision.
The Washington Post is flailing.
Basically, if it wasn't for a billionaire like Jeff Bezos propping them up, they would go out of business.
What I think he's trying to do is recognize that, you know, this is kind of the old Michael Jordan philosophy on sneakers.
Republicans buy sneakers, Democrats buy sneakers.
They've realized that the Post has moved so far to the left that they've lost people.
They've gaslit readers and people who used to think that the Washington Post was actually fact-based.
So he's taking the opinion page, which has always been something that owners have had a hand in, and saying, hey, I'm going to just make it straight now.
I'm just going to talk about free markets, principles that are important to us, but I'm not going to get into the gaslighting of the right that I have seen this page do.
This is a smart business move.
The paper is unsustainable right now, and that's why they're doing it.
But he needs to get people back into the fold because the Washington Post has drifted so far to the left.
But why is it supporting free speech to ban a certain amount of speech?
I mean, Mark Lamont is not.
It's not.
But Piers, here's the point.
First of all, it was banned in the past.
You can call what you want, but at the end of the day, think about what happened to the New York Times, right?
No, no, I get it.
I get it.
I get why they're doing it.
I just don't.
But they did.
They used to.
They just banned the right and didn't tell us.
No, no, I get that.
We're just going to, but they didn't make an announcement about it.
And I think Mark Lamont as a journalist, it just sits uncomfortably with me that an opinion page where you would imagine there would be a lot of disparate opinions encouraged and to have open free debate.
But no one, again, this gets back to what I said earlier about the Correspondents Association.
For decades, right-leaning voices were shut down.
Now, I understand that.
And so now that he wants to be straight, everybody goes back to the business.
I get it, but he's not being put in, Sean.
He's not being straight.
He's going over there.
Sean, I was with you until I was with Sean until the very last second.
Sean, I was literally about to give you a hug virtually.
Hey, I'm Caitlin Becker, the host of the New York Postcast, and I've got exactly what you need to start your weekdays.
Every morning, I'll bring you the stories that matter, plus the news people actually talk about.
The juicy details in the world, politics, business, pop culture, and everything in between.
It's what you want from the New York Post wrapped up in one snappy show.
Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast.
Listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
We were about to agree totally.
You can still do that.
They're not going straight.
When you say we're only going to basically support free market fundamentalism, libertarianism, and that's the only position we're offering, that's not doing it straight.
That's going from hard left to hard right.
And look, I agree with you.
It is a business decision.
They have a right to make that business decision.
I don't think it's good for the American democracy.
I don't think it's good for the American media landscape.
Just like I wish the New York Times had more right-leaning voices.
I think we need diversity everywhere.
Just like I wish MSNBC had more diverse voices.
I wish Fox News had more diverse voices.
I wish everybody actually had real conversations with people who disagreed with them and not just on issues of race.
Not just get the woman to talk about gender and the guy to the black guy to talk about race, but to have real, substantive, diverse conversations around a range of issues.
I'd love that.
I think this is not.
That's where I disagree with you finally.
I don't think it's funny.
The outreach only comes for decades on end.
No one was concerned about the left-leaning editorial page of the Washington Post.
The second that Bezos says, and maybe he goes hard right.
But why is it suddenly a problem?
We've barely, we've been shut out of the discussion for so long on the right that the second that someone comes along and says, hey, this is a bad business model, I don't think Jeff Bezos actually believes this crap.
Same the way I don't believe Zuckerberg believes any of this.
They're just making smart business decisions.
But at the end of the day, I don't, I mean, I'm with you, Mark.
I wish that you could have gotten an op-ed from someone on the right and someone on the left and actually been informed.
But the Washington Post, the New York Times have shut out voices on the right for decades.
And now everybody's up in arms because wow, maybe Jeff Leonardo.
I want to move on.
I want to move on.
We've got this show on the Wall Street Journal.
All right, guys, we're moving on to other topics.
Jake Tapper has a new book out.
Thank you, Pierce.
Jake Tapper has a new book out.
Not yet.
Not yet.
What's that?
It's not yet.
I will predict here.
I don't think this book, I'm glad you're covering this, but I will bet you today it doesn't get published.
Okay, well, let's explain what it is to viewers who don't know.
It's called Original Sin, President Biden's Decline, His Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again.
Now, the reason it's blown up and been so kind of tricky is that Jake gave an interview or was interviewing Laura Trump when she and well, let's play the clip.
You work it out for yourselves what happened.
I think what we see on stage with Joe Biden, Jake, is very clearly a cognitive decline.
That's what I'm referring to.
It makes me uncomfortable.
You are no avenue of page.
It's so amazing.
It's so amazing to me that a cognitive decline.
You're trying to tell me that what I was suggesting was that I did Joe Middleton.
Yeah, I think you were mocking his stutter.
And I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody's cognitive decline.
I would think that somebody in the Trump family would be more sensitive to people who do not have medical licenses diagnosing politicians from afar.
The criticism, Anna, here is that in the blurb for the book, it goes on to say what you will learn makes President Biden's decision to run for re-election seem shockingly narcissistic, self-delusional, and reckless, a desperate bet that went bust and part of a larger act of extended public deception that has few precedents.
And people are saying, well, hang on.
That decision was taken literally around the time that that interview took place with Lara Trump when you were enraged, Jake.
Now, I like Jake.
I think he's a very good broadcaster.
But he's going to face a lot of criticism, I think, about this apparent double standard here.
What do you think, Anna?
I mean, I agree, and he should face some backlash for the fact that he skewered anyone who was concerned about Biden's age during the 2020 election cycle and after the election cycle.
But, you know, he couldn't really pretend as though Biden still had perfect mental health after that disastrous debate for the 2024 election cycle.
I would have maybe sat this one out, maybe don't publish that book, maybe find a different topic.
And look, I want to make a broader point, a broader point about, you know, Democrats in general.
And I say this out of kindness because I think this is what's leading to them making poor decisions.
If the right claims something, I get the temptation to automatically assume it's bad faith, there's no truth to it, no credibility, no merit.
I get that temptation to think that.
And you know what?
In a lot of cases, that might even be true.
But sometimes they make good points, and you should, as someone who purports to be a journalist, just investigate it.
You don't have to believe what anyone says at face value, but just investigate it a little bit because they might be telling the truth.
They might be, you know, lifting the veil on some big issue that the left is blind to.
So please don't automatically assume that if someone on the right says something, it's automatically wrong.
They might have a good point.
Just look into it.
I actually agree.
I also think actually, well, hang on, hang on, hang on.
I actually think to broaden that, that when I look at people who come from left or right, the real ultimate litmus test for me is are they prepared to criticize their own side about anything?
Because if they're not, they're not being honest brokers.
Every side has its problems.
Everyone on that side should be open and honest enough to say this is wrong when their side drops the ball or does something wrong.
Look, after Jake left his job as the spokesman for Hooters, he went on to be the spokesman for a Democratic Congresswoman, Hillary Clinton's mother-in-law, as a matter of fact.
And now he's writing a book called President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up.
I think it should be my cover-up of his decline.
But he's facing backlash both from people who see that interview with Laura Trump that you just played and getting whacked for it, rightly so.
But secondly, the publisher is facing a ton of criticism for actually allowing this book to come out and exposing Joe Biden to something that we didn't need a medical degree to see.
Anyone with eyes and ears saw his cognitive and physical decline.
And for Jake Tapper to deny it now and try to profit off it is ridiculous and absurd and hypocritical.
Okay, Natalie, your thoughts?
Well, look, this is industrial grade projection.
The only sin is what the media did for the last four years in terms of lying about Joe Biden.
I think this book would probably be better published as an autobiography because Jake Tapper played an instrumental role.
And frankly, I would start the tape not just on the interview that you played, but go back to President Trump's first term where Jake Tapper would interview these radical Democrat members of Congress who would go on and say things like Jamie Raskin saying that President Trump should be impeached under the 25th Amendment because he's mentally unwell or mentally unfit to be president of the United States.
And Jake Tapper, during that interview, sat there, did not push back one bit.
It's a double standard, but frankly, you come to expect it.
And I think to link it back to, frankly, all the stories that we've been discussing, there's this weird, to sort of use an intel community term, limited hangout, I think that we're seeing come from people who have really, I think, made their careers off of opposing President Trump, the populist kind of MAGA movement, whether it's the Zuckerbergs of the world, the sort of tech oligarchs.
But now, even here, you have figures in media trying to act like they were really heavy-handed or even fair-handed and tough in their approach to Joe Biden, to Democrats.
And I'm sorry, but it's just not true.
So I don't really know what audience he's trying to do.
Well, I'm actually going to bring out a book because MAGA does not have a short-term.
I'm going to bring out a rival book called I Told You, which will be all my columns for the New York Post.
I mean, a lot that I wrote about Joe Biden's cognitive problems and why he wasn't fit to be president of the United States.
And I'm not even American, and I could tell he wasn't fit to be your president.
So I'm afraid it was there in everyone could see it.
He kept falling over.
He kept saying stupid stuff.
He kept, you know, everything about his behavior screened cognitive problems and rapid decline.
And the people who tried to pretend otherwise, when we had that debate last summer, there it was.
Suddenly, the great lie about Biden's cognitive ability was laid bare.
And what happened?
Total mayhem for the Democrats.
He had to go.
They parachuted in Carmela Harris.
She's no good.
They get a whacking Trump's president again.
And it all came down to the fact they all conspired to lie to the American people about the state of Biden's health.
No.
No?
No, I think that 75%, which for you is great, Pierce, 75% of what you just said is true.
But I think there's some pieces here that I think we have to consider.
That's a good percentage.
First of all, that clip you showed.
Hey, for you, man, this is like records.
You are, first of all, the clip we showed was from October of 2020, right?
That's before a re-election decision.
That's before President Biden becomes President Biden.
And I think at that moment, he was.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Hang on.
Let me just repeat what they say in the blurb for the book.
What you will learn, next President Buzz's decision to run for reelection seems shockingly narcissistic, self-delusional, and reckless.
That decision was taken long before that interview took place.
That interview was from October of 2020.
It showed on the screen.
Did I misread it?
Yeah.
October of 2020 is when he defeated Trump.
Well, okay, he ran for election as well in 2020.
Okay.
All right.
You're saying that's not the same thing.
I'm just going to tell you.
Let me correct.
You can just miss your point.
Hang on.
I'm going to give you a win.
I misread it.
I misread it.
I thought they were talking about his decision to run originally.
So you're right.
Thank you.
You're right.
No, it's an important clarification.
I won one.
You won.
I'm giving you that.
I'm giving you that.
I misread it.
Thank you.
That was a good question.
They're talking about more important point.
Yes.
Your point is not an unfair one.
Because actually, I guess Jake Tapper would say, well, it wasn't as obvious in October 2020 as it is now.
That's all I'm trying to say.
And Joe Biden did win the election the month after that interview.
So clearly the American people did not think it was that obvious, even though he was hiding in a background.
And Piers, that's exactly where I'm going.
I'm saying at the time of the interview you just showed, Biden was aging.
And personally, I didn't think he was as strong as he should have been to be president.
I don't think anybody, or almost anybody at that age, is strong enough to be president in all the ways.
But at that point, he wasn't at the decline.
And I think it was reasonable for journalists.
I don't care what political persuasion you have, for journalists to say, hey, until we have a medical certainty here, or at least a medical insight here, let's not essentially claim that he's seen it.
Biden's Aging: A Hidden Reality Check00:03:23
Okay.
Well, you know what, Jake and Jake will get it.
He's 2020 to 2022.
Man, this is always in his base.
By the way, he gets to 2022.
Now you do need to be an exciting.
Here's the bottom line.
The bottom line is I do know.
Jake is going to get asked these questions.
He'll be able to answer.
I'm interested in what he has to say about it because he's a smart guy and it'll be, I'm sure, a very readable book.
But the bigger picture is really how the mainstream media collectively, I think, deliberately went out of their way to mask it as that second, well, the four years of his tenure as president.
How that unraveled, it was very quickly obvious to a lot of people, including me with the columns I wrote.
But some of us were like, this guy was sufferers.
That's all I'm saying.
No, I get it.
I get it.
It wasn't all a conspiracy.
Some of us didn't know either.
I get it.
I get it.
Some of us had our suspicions.
I get it.
I hear you.
That's all I'm saying.
Yeah, I've given you one win.
You're not getting another one.
Let's turn to Alec Baldwin.
I'll take it.
Let's turn to Alec Baldwin.
Because he's got this new show out, reality show on Discovery Plus, The Baldwins, just had its season premiere.
Let's take a look at the clip.
Okay, do you want me to look up a haircut for you?
No, show me the picture that Carmen said that they think the boy should.
I want to see it.
No, she didn't send a picture for you.
His children are like five.
Do you want her to send you a picture for you?
Yes, I actually do.
Okay, I'm calling her and telling her.
Yeah.
I wonder why I'm here, Arna.
Daddy feels left out that you didn't send a haircut for him.
She did the same one as Romia.
I love you.
Bye.
Carmen, this kid's five years old.
Send an age-appropriate picture of him.
You can't actually endure much more of that.
That's pretty much the highlight of the whole thing.
What's extraordinary, only 10 minutes or so of that episode are given over to his shooting of the Rust cinematographer Helena Hutchins.
But most of that is in relation to Alec Baldwin suffering PTSD from shooting that woman and how he needs to be able to move on.
Jason, I mean, I've been very critical of Baldwin from when that happened onwards because he's constantly positioned himself as the real victim here.
And obviously, the victim is the woman he shot.
Alec Baldwin is suffering the same thing a lot of leftists are suffering.
The world has dramatically changed.
They're not as in control of the matrix as they used to be.
Elon Musk take over Twitter, turning it into X, has changed the way conversations unfold in public.
The marketplace of ideas has been expanded, the Overton window.
And so he's doing this whatever series with Netflix or whatever to try to portray himself as the average, normal, hey, have sympathy for me.
The American public are not going to fall for it anymore.
There's going to be a real discussion about how phony and fake this guy is and how this whole thing is manufactured.
And he's going to have a difficult time rehabilitating his image because now we're all free to have legitimate discussions over social media and analyze these people, not against these algorithms that were so big to favor the left.
And if you criticize their sacred cows, you were shouted down.
You were framed as outside the norm.
He's going to have to deal with the new reality.
People aren't going to fall for this.
Okay, we're running out of time.
Sean, I know you have to go.
So just leave me with your thoughts.
Andrew Tate's Manufactured Image Collapse00:03:17
I'll just read you some of the reviews, which have been some of the worst reviews I've ever seen for any television ever produced in the history of the medium.
Vulture said the Baldwins is grimmer than you imagined.
Telegraph said it was a self-pitying attempt at image rehabilitation.
The Daily Mail says simply what hideous people.
And even The Guardian.
And if you lose The Guardian when you're a lefty like Baldwin, even The Guardian called it a new low for television.
Think about how much crap we've seen on television and this is a new low.
Your thoughts, Sean, before you go.
Yeah, I mean, it says something that Joy Reed loses her show and he gets to keep doing this crap.
I don't know who's going to watch it.
My guess is it doesn't stay around very long.
It's unwatchable.
She's ridiculous.
The whole thing, the idea that anybody thinks giving them a deal, because it's not just him, it's her as well, is insane.
And I just want to talk to you very, very quickly about something completely different, which is breaking as we're doing this, which is these two brothers, Andrew and Tristan Tate, who are facing serious charges of sex trafficking, rape, and other things, have been allowed to fly from Romania to Florida today.
They've just landed.
Andrew Tate has said, my brother and I are largely misunderstood.
Now, the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has responded by saying the reality is Florida is not a place where you are welcome talking about the Tates with that type of conduct.
I don't know how it came to this.
I found out through the media this was happening and he's now looking into it.
This is an ongoing, pretty movable feast.
I talked to Alina Haba, the counselor to President Donald Trump, who was being very flattering to Andrew Tate on Benny Johnson's show only last month.
And many people think the White House has somehow engineered this freedom flight, if you like, because he'll now escape justice in Romania with his brother or whatever justice may have been.
We don't know.
They've protested their innocence, but they now won't have to face any criminal proceeding there if they stay in America.
What do you think of this?
Look, I think a lot of people who are public figures end up being misunderstood to some extent.
The Tate Brothers, not an example of that, because Andrew Tate has streamed so many episodes of his show, if you can call it that, where he literally brags about manipulating women, tricking women into essentially being part of his like, you know, harem of women that he, anyway, makes money off of.
Let's just put it that way.
I don't want to get too crude here.
But he brags about it.
I mean, he himself, there's endless evidence to prove it.
And honestly, I don't know what Donald Trump is doing here.
Like, why would you associate yourself with these people?
It's like he needlessly brings on criticism, right?
You don't need to associate yourself with the Tates and you don't need to bring them here to the United States from Romania where they're facing serious charges.
Okay, Natalie's quick response.
We've run out of time, but this just dropped.
So Natalie, your response to that.
Look, I think if the Trump administration had been intimately involved with bringing him over here, you know, every civil servant bureaucrat there, they would be leaking profusely.
It would be the lead story on every mainstream media outlet.
I don't speak for the White House.
I don't know.
I don't think that they were involved in this.
Like Alina Hobbes said, it's the Romanian Justice Department that allowed them to fly here.
Waiting for Trump to Speak Directly00:00:41
I think when President Trump has a strong opinion on something, he lets it be heard.
I have not heard him speak on this, so I think we should wait to hear from him directly before we let the media do what they do best, which is great.
We've got to leave it there, but that's just happening.
It's developing as we're talking.
Thank you all for an excellent panel.
I appreciate it.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
You enjoy our show.
We ask for only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent on censored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.