Piers Morgan Isn’t Under Attack — He’s Under Review
Performative outrage, false equivalence, and the death of journalistic integrity: dissecting Piers Morgan’s calculated damage control and victimhood card
Piers Morgan wants you to believe he’s under attack for being a brave, impartial journalist calling it like he sees it. In reality, he’s being called out—for good reason—for embodying everything wrong with modern media: performative outrage, selective morality, and an complete absence of journalistic integrity. Piers Morgan’s latest Substack isn’t a brave defense of journalistic neutrality—it’s a clean-up job. After his disgraceful treatment of Natasha Hausdorff and repeated misrepresentation of facts surrounding Gaza and Hamas, Morgan is now trying to reframe himself as the reasonable, misunderstood middleman.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t principled nuance—it’s damage control.
Now, faced with mounting backlash, Morgan is trying to spin the story—casting himself as the victim of “tribal outrage,” when in reality he’s just finally being held accountable
In this post, I’ll go through his latest substack post point by point, exposing the revisionism at work and unpacking how Piers Morgan is once again turning criticism into a self-serving performance. He’s not being silenced—he’s being fact-checked. And he doesn’t like it.
“Make no mistake, Hamas is a genocidal terror network whose wicked goal is the total eradication of the Israeli state.”
“But once again, I find myself asking how much further this can go before Israel is guilty of the very terror it’s supposed to be fighting.”
“Strong words, which I sincerely agree with. And that will come as no surprise when you discover that I said them on my show - exactly one year ago.”
Piers first sentence is correct, but disingenuous, he is trying to make you believe he understand the challenges when facing a genocidal enemy, determined to the destruction of an entire people. He doesn’t.
By the second sentence, Piers Morgan’s credibility fully collapses. To say Israel risks becoming “guilty of the very terror it’s supposed to be fighting” is not just morally wrong—it’s obscene and disgraceful. For that comparison to hold any weight, thousands of Israeli civilians and the IDF would need to go on a rampage of mass slaughter, raping, burning people alive, mutilating, kidnapping babies from their homes—while openly vowing to do it again and again, all while enjoying every second of it. Have cheering crowds of Israelis, celebrating the barbarity and abusing corpses and hostages on the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. They would have to rain down thousands of missiles stuffed with scrap metal indiscriminately into Gaza with the sole intent of maximizing civilian agony.
That is not what’s happening — and Piers knows it. His framing isn’t some clumsy mistake; it’s calculated. The goal is obvious: draw a false equivalence between Israel and a genocidal terror group whose entire existence is dedicated to the extermination of an entire people. It’s not journalism and anyone pushing that comparison isn’t seeking truth — they’re manufacturing lies.
And by the third sentence, it becomes clear to anyone seeking impartiality and facts that you won’t get either from Piers Morgan — and you haven’t from the start. One year ago, while Piers was already telling his viewers that Israel was “close to becoming a monster,” the facts told a different story. But this post isn’t about opinions; it’s about facts. So let’s go through the rest of his commentary and expose the falsehoods one by one.
“Throngs of social media tribalists think I’ve suddenly and dramatically ‘switched sides’ on Israel’s war in Gaza.
The truth is that I’m not on any side and never have been. That’s not my job as a journalist.
And there has been no sudden change either.
My anger with Israel’s leadership has been simmering for a long time.”
What Piers calls “throngs of social media tribalists” — essentially, a large, densely packed crowd of people or animals for those unfamiliar with the term — are mostly Jews and Israel supporters who chose to finally call him out. Most triggered by disgust for his treatment of Natasha Hausdorff, and others for shamelessly inviting a Hamas member as a guest. One thing I can agree on: there’s been no sudden shift in his stance. Piers has never stood for integrity or facts, and his contempt for Israel has been clear from the very beginning.
“Just as the war itself has evolved insidiously from a righteous response to a heinous terrorist attack into a campaign of aimless brutality.
Israel has marched over red line after red line, culminating in the horrific 11-week blockade which left thousands starving - many of them infants. I make no apologies for being appalled.”
Piers’s claim of a slow, progressive shift in his stance — supposedly driven by Israel “marching over red line after red line” and turning “into a campaign of aimless brutality” — is completely false. How do we know? All it takes is a quick look back to the start of the war to see where he really stood.
On October 9th, Piers interviewed a British-Israeli family who survived the October 7th massacre — including their 10-month-old baby. All good. No controversy there — except… right at the end of the interview, the survivors asked if they could share their GoFundMe link to help rebuild their lives. Piers cut them off before they could share it, saying, “Don’t worry, I’ll tell you what I’ll do, Deborah, I will tweet that, I’ve got over 8 million followers…..” That was 609 days ago. They’re still waiting for that tweet, there are no traces of him or his show account to have tweeted the link for his followers and viewers to help them.
Then came October 10th. Piers hosted Gal Saad and Uri Geller for one-on-one interviews. By that point, the full scope of Hamas’s atrocities was emerging — mass murder, rape, kidnappings — and what was Piers’s focus? Not the victims. Not the 251 hostages, including 39 children, 90 women (most of them civilians), and dozens of senior citizens, including Holocaust survivors. Not the fact that Israel was also under attack from Hezbollah in the north. No — his concern was “how Israel would respond,” how that response would be “devastating for the people of Gaza,” how he understood “why Palestinians feel oppressed,” and about “achieving peace.” He even told Uri Geller to forget about the attack and think about a path forward and achieving peace. Israel was still picking up warm bodies, had not even started properly counting the dead, didn’t even know who and how many were kidnapped and was still fighting terrorists inside its territory. For Piers, it was already a past event — irrelevant to what would come next.
First, the obvious: how is the so-called oppression of the people in Gaza relevant to what Hamas did just three days earlier? It’s not. And the fact that Piers brings it up from the get-go tells you everything — he sees the attack as having a justification: “Palestinian oppression.” From the very start, in his framing, Israel is guilty — guilty for being attacked.
Now to the rest of the show— sorry for my French, but who the fuck is thinking about “achieving peace” while a genocidal terrorist group just carried out such a massacre? Who the fuck is thinking about “how is Israel going to respond” instead of the state of the children, women, and elders taken hostage? How to save THEIR lives! No, that wasn’t even a footnote on his concerns. His only concern was “Palestine.”
Two days later was Ben Shapiro’s interview with Piers. What was the show really about? Mohammed Hijab calling Ben Shapiro a “genocidal maniac” and debating “proportionality.” From the start, Piers seemed only concerned with questioning the limits on how much Jews can defend themselves and save their people. I highly doubt his concern after 9/11 was about “what is a proportionate response from America.”
As you can see, his stand hasn’t evolved — his hostility simply intensified. He hasn’t changed his views; he’s just become more brazen in expressing them. His habit of interrupting Israeli guests isn’t new either. Maybe not 103 times, as he did with Natasha Hausdorff, but cutting off Israeli supporters and officials mid-sentence has long been his default mode.
Just seven weeks after IDF tanks and soldiers crossed into Gaza, as early as December 2023, he was already suggesting that Israel might be guilty of genocide — under the guise of “quoting the United Nations” — and blatantly claiming it was deliberately targeting civilians and committing terrorism against Palestinians.
Does he sound like an impartial, truth-seeking journalist? Not to me — he never did, he never was. He took the opportunity of a tragic accident, in which three Israeli hostages were killed after being mistakenly identified as terrorists by the IDF, to take cheap shots at Mark Regev, senior adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and demand answers just four days after the incident. Even if more details were known by the IDF, they were most likely classified until a full investigation could be completed. Let’s be clear, a political adviser to the Prime Minister is unlikely to have up-to-date information on every incident under investigation anyway. Piers wasn’t just demanding answers from the wrong person — he was expecting real-time updates, and treating any lack of response as a guilty verdict in his personal inquisition against Israel.
“the horrific 11-week blockade which left thousands starving - many of them infants.” for what he “makes no apologies for being appalled” for, shows exactly how he is not interested in any facts. Facts have been presented to him, he is well aware that months worth of food entered Gaza before the blockade, he is aware that not a single person or infant died of starvation, he also knows Hamas steals the food and sells it for exorbitant prices and that Gazans have more calories per capita than countries like Norway. None of that matters, he is not interested in spreading the truth, he is only interested in demonizing Israel.
“For a long time I was berated for spouting Israeli talking points and ridiculously accused of being an Islamophobe.
At the moment I’m being repeatedly berated for spouting Hamas talking points and equally ridiculously accused of being an antisemite.
Fanatics on both sides of this debate try to smear their critics as bigots and use phrases like “propaganda” and “talking points” to discredit what they say.
They will cheer you to the rafters when you’re echoing their position and accuse you of villainous misdeeds when you don’t.”
What Piers describes as getting "berated for spouting Israeli talking points and ridiculously accused of being an Islamophobe" was, in reality, just backlash from pro-Hamas voices who were outraged that he dared to ask whether they condemned the mass slaughter of civilians and the kidnapping of babies. That’s what they called “Israeli talking points” and “Islamophobic.” Not exactly a crowd anyone should be worried about pleasing.
The “fanatics” calling him out now — Jews and Israel supporters fact checking his les— we aren’t suddenly turning on him. We haven’t changed our views. Piers simply crossed every single red line. He invited a literal terrorist, an actual member of Hamas, onto his show as a guest. He disrespected one of the most respected international legal scholars on this conflict by interrupting her 103 times and reducing her arguments to stupidity. This isn’t new behavior — people are used to him parroting headlines without research and holding Israel to a standard applied to no other country. That is antisemitism, per the working definition: holding the Jewish state to standards not expected of anyone else.
Maybe Piers doesn’t hate Jews. But he certainly treats the only Jewish state as uniquely guilty — guilty simply for trying to survive. Call it antisemitism or just “hating Israel with every fiber of your body” — it’s the same to me.
And if having a Hamas member on your show isn’t “spouting Hamas propaganda” and “talking points,” then what is?
No one needs to discredit you, Piers — you do that all by yourself, every single day. But this time, you went too far. Now you're doing damage control. Now you're playing the victim.
“Many of the same people who have praised my combative interviews with Hamas apologists are now demanding my show is cancelled, which will be extremely difficult because I own it.
Honestly Piers, no one cares if you have your own show or not, people are not demanding for your show to be cancelled, they are calling for people to cancel you, to not be a guest on your show anymore, to not give you their eyes. You don’t “own” your show, the viewers do. No viewers, no show. It’s that simple.
That’s why it’s so important to keep a firm grip on facts and your own sense of what’s right and wrong.”
All I can say is — what facts? You have none. And that’s exactly what you’re angry about: people are finally fact-checking you. Your sense of right and wrong seems completely broken. I genuinely suggest you find someone who can help you sort that out.
“My sense is that Israel had every right, and indeed a duty, to declare war on Hamas.
But what the IDF is now doing is deeply and clearly wrong.”
It’s always the “But…” with Piers— from the very start. Yes, Hamas attacked Israel, but… how do you achieve peace? Yes, Hamas committed a horrific massacre, but… what is proportional? Yes, they kidnapped babies, but… Palestinians are oppressed. You’re allowed to think Israel had the right — even the duty — to declare war, just don’t think it has the right to actually fight it. That much has been clear from the start.
“The facts in Gaza are hard to come by. As the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen said, Israeli forces won’t let him or anybody else in because they probably want to hide what they’re doing.”
Piers, once again — any journalist can apply through the IDF and will receive the same access granted in any other warzone around the world. But you continue demanding that Israel allow unrestricted access into an active combat zone — something that doesn’t exist, has never existed, and never will. It’s a clear case of holding Israel to a standard no other country is expected to meet. You cry that it means Israel has something to hide, but the truth is, it’s the media that’s choosing not to cover the war. Stop pretending you don’t know how this works just so you can keep vilifying Israel.
“But we have enough evidence from the medics, volunteers, footage and testimony to understand that one of the world’s most advanced militaries is inflicting death and suffering on an inhuman scale.”
Yes, Piers, you have plenty of “evidence” — the real problem is where it’s coming from. The international media has flat-out refused to play by the rules or uphold even the most basic standards of journalistic integrity. Starting with the most obvious: don’t hire terrorists to report the news. And yet, many so-called “journalists” in Gaza have been proven — beyond any shadow of a doubt — to have ties to Hamas. That’s not speculation. It’s fact.
Time and time again, you and the media have failed to vet the so-called medics, volunteers, footage, and testimony you eagerly promote — only for it to be exposed as staged, manipulated, or coming from Hamas affiliates. Is there suffering and death in Gaza? Of course. What warzone doesn’t have suffering? What war doesn’t involve tragedy? That’s the brutal reality of every conflict — and we all wish it would end.
But the clearest example of your failure vetting the so called “evidence” is you. You invited a Hamas member onto your show. You gave him legitimacy. You treated him as a reasonable, credible voice. You believed every word he said. Your only objection? That he wouldn’t openly admit Hamas wants to kill all the Jews.
“If that’s a “Hamas talking point”, ask yourself why so many of Israel’s allies, two former Israeli Prime Ministers and many of Israel’s staunchest supporters are now using it.”
Yes, Piers — inviting Hamas members onto your show and repeating their “evidence” without a shred of verification is literally spreading Hamas talking points. As for your question — why are two former Israeli Prime Ministers and some of Israel’s strongest supporters “using it”? The answer is simple. Sure, there might be a bit of political opportunism in the mix. But the more obvious truth? Propaganda gets to people, even to the best of them. And you are the reason why.
You, and much of the media, have become a pipeline for Hamas’s narrative. You radicalize people. You repeat lies, amplify them, and wrap them in the false language of balance. Those who can still think critically are standing firm in support of Israel. Those who can’t? They’ve become victims of the lies.
“Several recent interviews on Uncensored have laid bare my frustration with Israel’s position, most notably the one I did with Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s ambassador to the UK
I asked her 17 times how she could say with great certainty how many Hamas terrorists Israel has eliminated but apparently have no idea how many innocent children have died as collateral.
And 17 times she failed to give an answer.”
Piers wants you to forget why the backlash against him really started — which is exactly why he doesn’t even mention it in his entire post. Instead, he picks a moment that’s convenient for his damage control narrative, hoping to reframe the story on his terms. But it’s not working. He knows the outrage wasn’t sparked by his interview with Ambassador Tzipi Hotovely — no one batted an eye at that. We’ve seen his usual style before: aggressive, interruptive, repetitive. That wasn’t the issue. The outrage erupted when he crossed every red line — by giving a Hamas member a global platform and by openly abusing and humiliating Natasha Hausdorff, a respected international lawyer, on TV.
As for his big and proud claim — that he asked Hotovely 17 times why Israel doesn’t know how many children have died — it just shows how unserious he is. He knows that no army in the world tracks collateral deaths with that kind of breakdown, especially not in real time. Not the UK, not the US, not Canada, not NATO — none of them. It’s not standard military protocol anywhere. But somehow, for Israel, Piers demands the impossible — once again holding the only Jewish state to a standard that applies to no one else.
“This week Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy was accused on air by an Israeli spokesman of “advocating for Hamas” for having the temerity to question the official position on deadly clashes at aid sites.”
He was rightfully accused. At some point, the media must be held accountable for spreading blatant falsehoods. In that interview, the Israeli spokesperson repeatedly tried to explain the evidence, and instead of engaging in good-faith scrutiny, Piers openly questioned its validity — not by probing, but by outright declaring it fabricated. Did he apply the same skepticism to Hamas’s claims? Of course not. He accepted them as fact, no hesitation. This wasn’t journalism; it was an accusation. He didn’t just question Israel’s official position — he flat-out called it a “lie.”
And yet, when major outlets like the BBC and Washington Post were forced to retract their false reporting, silence from him. No correction. No accountability. Not even a mention. An apology for always calling Israel a liar while blindly parroting Hamas propaganda would be a start. But maybe that’s asking too much.
“It’s not going to wash. When senior members of the Israeli government are openly calling for the total conquest and destruction of Gaza (i.e. genocide), its representatives should expect to find their moral high ground is collapsing.”
It’s not going to wash — because this isn’t about one minister’s inflammatory rhetoric. Most Israelis and Jews do not support what Ben Gvir or Bezalel Smotrich says. In fact, we openly despise him. We ignore him. We hope for the day he’s out of government entirely. He has no influence on how this war is conducted, no control over military decisions, and their actual job — if anyone cares to look — is managing budget line items and the internal police force of Israel. They’re not shaping military goals and objectives. They not at the table where those decisions are made.
Every country has loud, unhinged, and condemnable politicians. No one judges the UK by George Galloway. No one says America is Marjorie Taylor Greene or AOC. But somehow, when it comes to Israel — or more broadly, to Jews — a single outrageous voice suddenly becomes representative of an entire nation. A throwaway comment becomes government policy. It’s not just a double standard. It’s a unique standard, reserved only for the Jewish state. So you are right Piers, it’s not going to wash, but the only moral high ground which collapsed is yours, and you know it. That is why you are on damage control mode.
“Do we hold Israeli officials to a higher standard than Hamas?
Yes. Of course we do.
Otherwise, what was the point of the war?
It was a conflict waged against killing with impunity, against civilian suffering and against the hateful disregard for human life.”
You’re not holding Israeli officials to a “higher standard” than Hamas — the world has created an entirely unique one for Israel. Let’s be clear: the objective of this war was never vague. It wasn’t “ against killing with impunity, against civilian suffering and against the hateful disregard for human life.” It was — and remains — to rescue hostages from around the world, held in the underground dungeons of a genocidal death cult, and to remove that death cult from Israel’s borders. That’s the mission. You don’t get to rewrite it. You don’t get to shift the narrative just because it’s politically convenient
“I’ll continue to hold people on all sides to account, as I’ve tried to since this appalling war began.
But the uncomfortable truth right now is that the biggest driver of anti-Israel propaganda is the Israeli government itself.”
You’ve never held all sides to account. Since the war began, your position has been consistent — not balanced, not evolving, but one-sided, as I’ve already laid out in detail. The “uncomfortable truth” isn’t that the Israeli government is the biggest driver of anti-Israel propaganda. You know that’s not true. The real engine behind it is the international media — including you — along with NGOs, the UN, and every platform that’s been amplifying Hamas’s lies, unverified, uncensored, and without an ounce of journalistic integrity, shamelessly. You’re not reporting facts — you’re repeating a script. You are not the victim, you are getting fact checked and held into account for once.
Piers, lastly, going on an “ethnic cleansing” rampage on X — blocking everyone who dared call you out — says more about who you are than any carefully worded, damage-control post ever could. Your rampage started with Eitan Fischberger, who simply pointed out that you had invited a Hamas member onto your show. That’s it. No insults, no aggression — just a fact. Yet he was among the first to be blocked. You claim you only blocked “abusive” accounts — so where, exactly, was the abuse in Eitan’s message? Or is “abusive” now just a convenient euphemism for “Zionist” or “Jew”? Because that’s exactly what it looks like.
Enjoy Piers Morgan’s next show….
I had not appreciated Piers Morgan was quite so antisemitic. I know of him, but I don’t really watch him, but I did catch his last interview. I had to switch it off, because of his rudeness and ignorance. I also viewed his last post as an attempt to gaslight people into believing he was simply being ‘journalistic’. It’s not going to work. He’s shown his true colours; he’s antisemitic, pro Gaza and using his platform to persuade others to garner support for Gaza. Disgusting!
This guy has been acting more like Rush Limbaugh than an actual journalist. Time for him to face some consequences.