Posted on 01/11/2013 7:58:53 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Duane hit this in the Green Room, but I want to note a few passages from the appearance of Breitbart's Ben Shapiro on CNN with Piers Morgan last night. First, Ben calls out Morgan for acting like a bully to his guests and an activist rather than a journalist, a theme that fits nicely with Ben's new book, Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans. Ben told me on Wednesday's TEMS that he was relishing the confrontation --- and you can see why:
BEN SHAPIRO, EDITOR BREITBART.COM: You know, honestly Piers, you have kind of been a bully on this issue, because what you do, and I’ve seen it repeatedly on your show. I watch your show. And I’ve seen it repeatedly. What you tend to do is you tend to demonize people who differ from you politically by standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook saying they don’t seem to care enough about the dead kids. If they cared more about the dead kids, they would agree with you on policy. I think we can have a rational, political conversation about balancing rights and risks and rewards of all of these different policies, but I don’t think that what we need to do is demonize people on the other side as being unfeeling about what happened at Sandy Hook.
MORGAN: How dare you accuse me of standing on the graves of the children that died there. How dare you.
SHAPIRO: I’ve seen you do it repeatedly, Piers.
MORGAN: Like I say, how dare you.
SHAPIRO: Well, I mean, you can keep saying that, but you’ve done it repeatedly. What you do, and I’ve seen you do it on your program, is you keep saying to folks if they disagree with you politically, then somehow this is a violation of what happened in Sandy Hook. And you, I would really like to hear your policy prescriptions for what we should do about guns because you say you respect the second amendment. You know, I brought this here for you so you can read it. It’s the Constitution. And I would really like for you to explain to me what you would do about guns that would have prevented what happened in Sandy Hook. If you want to do what you did in the U.K., right, which is ban virtually all guns, that is at least a fair argument and we can have a discussion about whether that’s something that we ought to do or not.
Shapiro was also prepared to fight back when Morgan brings up “assault weapons” a couple of moments later:
MORGAN: They want to take away assault weapons, which are capable with magazines that we saw in Aurora and Sandy hook, of unleashing a ridiculous amount of —
SHAPRIO: This is what I wanted to ask you, Piers, because I have seen you talk about assault weapons a lot, and I have seen Mark Kelly talk about assault weapons. The vast majority of murders in this country that are committed with guns are committed with handguns, they are not committed assault weapons. Are you willing to ban handguns in this country, across this country?
MORGAN: No, that’s not what I’m asking for.
SHAPIRO: Why not? Don’t you care about the kids who are being killed in Chicago as much as the kids in Sandy Hook?
MORGAN: Yes, I do.
SHAPIRO: Then why don’t you care about banning the handguns in Chicago?
MORGAN: We’ll come to that.
Actually, Morgan never answers that question, as you can read from the transcript as well as watching from the video. He also never provides an answer as to why the assault-weapons ban in Connecticut didn’t stop the Newtown shooting — nor did Morgan ever provide a definition of “assault weapon.” That’s because Morgan has been talking out of his nether regions for the last several weeks on this topic, and Shapiro makes that pretty clear in the interview.
Finally, let’s give Morgan’s predecessor the last word. Larry King delivers a damning indictment of Morgan in an interview with the Huffington Post:
Larry King criticized Piers Morgan’s CNN show in an interview with HuffPost Live on Thursday.
It has been two years since Morgan took over King’s 9 p.m. time slot on CNN. Speaking to HuffPost Live’s Marc Lamont Hill, King pointed out that he and his successor have two very different approaches to their shows. “I never gave opinions,” King said. “Piers gives his opinions. The show is a lot about him as much as the guests… He’s so different from me.”
On the subject of cable news in general, King also lamented, “A lot of shows, they make it about the host and the guest becomes a prop to the host and I never liked that.”
“It’s not the quality that counts anymore,” he continued. “It’s how loud did you yell, how vituperative can you be.”
And how ignorant you can be while doing so.
bump
Ed Morrissey of Hotair made the following observation on the exchange:
SHAPIRO: This is what I wanted to ask you, Piers, because I have seen you talk about assault weapons a lot, and I have seen Mark Kelly talk about assault weapons. The vast majority of murders in this country that are committed with guns are committed with handguns, they are not committed assault weapons. Are you willing to ban handguns in this country, across this country?
MORGAN: No, that’s not what I’m asking for.
SHAPIRO: Why not? Don’t you care about the kids who are being killed in Chicago as much as the kids in Sandy Hook?
That’s the exact kind of argument that Morgan uses on his guests, but can’t handle when used back on him. Morgan seemed completely unprepared for his own tactics to be used on himself, and for Shapiro’s preparation:
Where Jones proved needy of a background screening, Shapiro was rational and on point. Where Jones failed to directly address Morgan’s points, Shapiro went right at them. Where Jones monologued, Shapiro got through his points quickly and shut up.
All those skills came in handy as Morgan tried to trap Shapiro by noting that Ronald Reagan had supported curbs on assault weapons:
MORGAN: One of the great right-wing presidents of modern times agreed with me.
Shapiro’s priceless retort: “So?”
It’s what happens in a battle of wits when one side is only half-armed. In truth, it doesn’t take “extreme polemical agility” to beat a poorly-informed journalistic bully like Morgan … but it certainly helps.
People tend to forget the original PURPOSE of the second amendment. The Second Amendment is about self defense on every level from protecting one’s self and family from criminals to the greater threat of a tyrannical government.
Ben Shapiro scored some quick points by calling Piers Morgan a bully that pontificates on the graves of the Sandy Hook children.
Absolutely, true.
The tactic used by Piers Morgan is an easy one to fall for and quite effective. It is one where he asks a question and then doesn’t allow a response. Note, how often Piers Morgan interrupts with another question and another issue. In legal circles, this is called “leading the witness”.
In his interview with Piers Morgan, Alex Jones was adept to this tactic and didn’t allow it to happen. Piers Morgan was unable to spin a scripted web to snare Jones. Unfortunately, Alex Jones came off in the interview as a ranting loon who refuses to engage in conversation.
When Piers Morgan tried to compare Shapiro with Jones, Shapiro blew publicly disassociated himself from Alex Jones. “Don’t compare me to Alex Jones.”
Looking back, I thought Shapiro could have said- “Look, Alex Jones has every right to disagree with you and to even condemn you for your bully pulpit views that are clearly unconstitutional. I agree with him on that. However, I am here to talk about my views alone.”
SOME OBSERVATIONS REGARDING BEN SHAPIRO, PIERS MORGAN AND MORGAN’s PREVIOUS GUEST — ALEX JONES....
Shapiro states correctly that the Second Amendment is written specifically for the American people to be well armed. They are to form a militia in times of crisis and will be used to protect the people of these united States. Folks this is about your property rights. It is also to have the effect of a counterweight; a deterrent to a government that becomes tyrannical.
It is not to be infringed.
Piers Morgan weaves a familiar script where he insisted on Shapiro to answer his question. If you noticed, the trap is set when Morgan doesn’t allow the guest to answer. He will intentionally interrupt the guest with another question or allegation. He will continue stacking the questions and allegations.
Indeed, Piers Morgan’s strategy is to paint a tapestry of the guest being “insensitive and absurd”.
In legal circles, such tactics would be a form of “leading the witness”, which would not be allowed in a court of law. Granted, the Piers Morgan show is not a court of law. Nevertheless, in any public debate there are rules of engagement. Each side is allowed to respond without constant interruption. Piers Morgan has an annoying habit of not letting his guest finish his point.
Alex Jones was adept in recognizing that the Piers Morgan Show is not a stage for a “fair” debate. Jones did not allow Piers Morgan to weave a web of questions and allegations. Each time Alex Jones fired back with a library of published statistics and facts.
In this regard, Alex Jones took Piers Morgan to the wood shed.
Unfortunately, Jones came off as a ranting, raving loon and his insistence that the US government had something to do with the destruction of the NY twin towers did him no favors.
It is also important noting that Piers Morgan and other anti-gun pundits ask repeatedly:
“Why does anyone need a military assault rifle like that of a AR-15?”
How many times was this question answered by the guests in those interviews?
Ben Shapiro answered it TWICE. It is to have the effect of a counterweight; a deterrent to a government that becomes tyrannical. Our government might not be tyrannical like Stalin or the Nazis now, but there is no guarantee that it won’t slowly evolve that way. THAT is why we need a means of protecting ourselves and DETERRING Tyranny.
Shapiro, being a Jew, effectively informs Piers of how his ancestors were affected in Europe under the Nazis because they had no means of protecting themselves.
Piers Morgan was given this answer and never responded to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.