How unhealthy is Uncensored? Piers Morgan’s show and the theatre of rage

In his interview with Morgan, Waters referred to the October 7 attacks as a “false flag operation”, claiming: “[Israel] attacked their people”.

Corbyn condemned the events of October 7 in his appearance on the show, but he refused to label Hamas as terrorists and avoided answering the question of whether they should remain in power.

This highlights a fundamental problem: while Morgan takes a moral stand, asserting that terrorism is never justified, he inadvertently risks causing significant harm by granting these perspectives a prominent platform.

This outcome should have been predictable before the interviews, as an empathy-driven dialogue on this subject was always going to be unlikely.

One cannot shake the impression that Morgan selects guests whose views are particularly explosive, undoubtedly boosting viewership.

A democratic culture thrives on debate and conflict, which serve the pursuit of truth. Morgan seems, at first glance, deeply committed to this tradition.

However, he is also inviting extremist viewpoints onto his show and, in doing so, unwittingly making them more palatable.

His position as a recognised journalist and his show’s format elevate the incendiary statements that emerge as acceptable, mainstream discourse.

As a result, these shows can become accelerators of inflammatory discourse, embedding the comments of eloquent and quick-witted guests in the minds of millions of viewers, much like slogans from advertising spots.

Incendiary comments made in the heat of the moment can end up on social media without the context of the debate.

It is also questionable whether there is really time on the show to offer real clarity on complex issues.

Instead, the bombardment of radical, simplified statements causes further division, deepening polarisation among the guests and the viewers, who then use these positions as the foundation for their own contributions in other contexts.

This snowball effect is something whose consequences we cannot yet fully foresee.

As a cognitive linguist, what astonishes me is the viewpoint held by some in politics and media that anything that can be thought should also be said – this, they argue, is part of Western debate culture.

According to them, it makes no difference whether statements are completely unhinged or balanced, or whether they are made at the bus stop or on a primetime TV show.

This view challenges all moral, cultural, and legal norms – it assumes we have always been in a weightless space.

Not only is this historically forgetful, but in light of the power of language and current political shifts, it is also an irresponsible claim.

Of course, there is a common ground from which one argument logically follows another based on moral norms and logical principles. This is not censorship but rather an evolution of debate culture.

The debate should serve the search for truth, not the recycling of dangerous constructs, the stupidity and danger of which were made abundantly clear in the 20th century.

Otherwise, journalists will simply be trailing behind the sensationalism of social media, where one outrageous thesis chases the next.

An analysis of online reactions to several formats, including podcasts in the UK and US context, shows that Morgan’s Uncensored show set record numbers as a trigger for antisemitism in the admittedly unmoderated comment sections, followed by Joe Rogan in the US. In comparison, formats such as TRIGGERnometry, PoliticsJOE, or Lex Fridman in the US ranked lower when it came to discussions on the Middle East conflict.

In several cases, Morgan’s show saw double or triple the amount of antisemitism in the talkbacks compared to the others, even when the same guest (eg, Egyptian TV host Bassem Youssef or American political scientist Norman Finkelstein) was invited.

This once again highlights how crucial it is for a host to take responsibility for carefully framing the discourse, thereby discouraging hate and conspiratorial statements, and resisting the tendency towards a more “anything goes” approach. A debate on a sensitive topic should not be allowed to become a fist fight to boost ratings.

Instead, it should inform the audience based on facts and moral considerations, and contribute to societal empowerment. Anything less is regression.

Language and communication have a profound impact on our world. They not only reflect reality but also significantly influence how we understand and assess content and events.

Nowhere is this more evident than when looking back at historical propaganda and the devastating consequences for the groups that were demonised.

Today, in the era of the internet, we are faced with an unprecedented flood of information, a constant battle over interpretations and truths.

The world is more complex not only because of what technology accomplishes out of human sight but also because of what it offers up for our consideration: a vast variety of patterns, arguments and narratives on social media – the modern marketplace of debate.

Media personalities, influencers and well-organised groups (not to mention bot armies) now have the power to leave a lasting mark on any topic.

The constant exposure to certain statements can gradually shift our perceptions and attitudes without us even realising it.

October 7, 2023 holds a special significance in this context.

Since that date, we have witnessed a rapid escalation in the culture of debate: an intensified struggle to gain approval for one’s position coupled with attempts to devalue the opposing side.

In the past 12 months, that battle has reached unprecedented proportions. Various approaches have been tried, with varying success, to curb this escalation to address the world’s most complicated conflict with some clarity.

Conventional news formats, with their brevity and the imperative for rapid information delivery, are rarely able to shed light on the matter comprehensively.

Podcasts, however, as a relatively new and unexpectedly popular online format, allow for in-depth discussions of the different sides of a topic.

However, the choice of guests and their positions is crucial, as they largely shape the tone and message of the show that listeners ultimately take away.

​

Dr Matthias J Becker is a cognitive linguist and researcher of social media and antisemitism at the University of Cambridge. He leads the international research project Decoding Antisemitism and is conducting a comprehensive media analysis of UK and US podcasts since October 7, 2023. The findings will be published in 2025