Joe Rogan, Dave Smith, Douglas Murray, Piers Morgan and Natasha Hausdorff

So much fuss over talk shows. Why?

Since UK lawyer Natasha Hausdorff’s appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored earlier this week, there has been unceasing, pitched blowback, primarily targeting the show’s host.

Natasha is a brilliant, articulate, and highly-regarded lawyer with extensive international law experience and credibility. She has been interviewed on the State of Tel Aviv podcast—admittedly, before she became something of a media star—and her ascent continues without pause. (You can listen to Part I of my extensive chat with her that was published in August, 2024 here and Part II here.)

Why she accepted the invitation to appear on Uncensored alongside American comedian Dave Smith baffles me. And therein is the real story here, in my opinion.

Dave vs. Douglas

Smith was invited recently by his guy pal Joe Rogan—King of the mega talk-show world - to appear on a podcast with the brilliant journalist and thought leader, Douglas Murray, who was promoting his newest book (which delves into October 7 and the aftermath of particularly virulent hatred directed at Israel and Jews). Murray easily made a hash of Dave (his day job is doing stand up comedy) who seems to have immersed himself in Al Jazeera articles and reels to prepare for his encounter.

Why Murray agreed to this wildly unbalanced match also mystifies me. I’m quickly coming to think that I’m incurably old school. Murray, in my view, should have pulled Joe aside and said, “Um. Joe. Perhaps we should rethink this. It will neither be a debate nor an informed discussion. I mean. Why not bring on Dora the Explorer?”

Who knows. Maybe Douglas did say something like that.

I did not watch the hours of tape recorded with Rogan, Smith, and Murray. Just a few clips. That was enough. Douglas and Dave operate in different stratospheres. Rogan does his sort of avuncular interlocutor shtick, which, frankly, I don’t get. He wades into these very complex matters, for hours, about which he often knows little. And people listen.

Make it make sense.

The whole Douglas vs. Dave thing was cast as a battle of class in the end. Douglas was the educated, smooth intellectual who could out-talk and out-knowledge Dave in his sleep. Dave complained about Douglas being an elitist. Douglas barely acknowledged Dave’s whinging. Mercifully, the moment passed quickly.

In Dave’s eyes, he represented the scrappy Everyman who maintained that you don’t need to get into all that history and political stuff cuz, like, children are dying, and that’s bad. Oh, and by the way—he’s Jewish.

This clash with Douglas became Dave’s big break. He became an international star for his astonishing brazenness on one of the most complex issues ever, in discussion with one of the sharpest minds ever. Social media lit up. Unfortunately, Dave loved the limelight and did not slink off quietly, as so many of us wish had happened. He was hooked.

Natasha vs. Dave

Enter Piers Morgan.

I’ve rarely—if ever - watched a whole episode of Piers Morgan’s wildly successful interview/talk show, Uncensored. On “X” alone he has close to 9-million followers. That’s insane reach.

A former tabloid editor, Piers’ history in journalism is colorful, to put it mildly. He is a master of building brand equity and, consequently, markets. Drawing clicks and eyeballs.

In the immediate aftermath of October 7, according to UK actor, writer, and comedian Lee Kern, Piers boasted online about the level of attention his show was getting. More on that later.

So. Piers invited comic Dave on his show to debate/discuss the Gaza situation with Natasha. Again, why Natasha would stoop to that level stumps me.

“Dave Smith? Are you serious?” That’s what I would have thought she might have asked. And perhaps she did. But in the end, she agreed to appear alongside this uninformed grasper. To be clear, I’m all for robust debate on important topics, but I do think there should be a modicum of parity between those in the ring. Otherwise, it’s just a vulgar mud-wrestling match. A kind of geopolitical take on Jerry Springer. And if you don’t know about his show (one of the earlier purveyors of tasteless slime), then google it.

I am friendly with more than a few individuals who have appeared on Piers’ show since October 7. I have asked many why they agree to do it. “Numbers and exposure” is the consistent response.

OK. But. I mean. Is there no limit? Do you really think that going on a show like Uncensored will sway anyone not already entrenched in a silo?

That’s the ultimate question. Does anyone have the opportunity to move the dial on that show? Is this really serious public discourse and engagement or, as I suggested earlier, the geopolitical version of Jerry Springer?

And that’s where the whole Natasha-Dave thing becomes really interesting. To me, anyway.

Since that gong show of an episode, Piers has been attacked unrelentingly on social media for being an antisemitic, misogynistic bully and luring Natasha on to the show only to pummel and lacerate her unceasingly.

In response, he says that she was spewing “bullsh*t” and deserved what she got. What she got, according to one of many who entered the online fray, was more than 60 interruptions by Piers. He did not allow her to finish a sentence.

He was rude, brusque, and mean. Her composure was mind-blowing. Her politeness is astounding.

And then there was comic Dave, smirking and sneering on camera on the rare occasion when Natasha managed to blurt out one or two consecutive sentences. Classy.

He looks dumb. He sounds dumb. And, judging by the content of his comments, he is dumb. He is ignorant, arrogant and oblivious to how foppishly he presents. But, hey. Dave is the man in the street. Fuck war. He’s for peace. It really is that simple in his world.

And now – thanks to Joe and Piers – he’s famous. Very famous. Meaning that in this dreadfully distorted media environment in which we now move that Dave Smit has influence.

I think that’s what the term “influencer” refers to. People like Dave.

Complexity and facts – to Dave - are Israeli propaganda. He has referred to Natasha as “Israel’s lawyer.” Exact words. I can’t recall if that was on Piers’ show or “X”. But it doesn’t really matter. It reinforces my generous assessment of his intellect and knowledge.

In contrast to his treatment of Natasha, Piers allowed comic Dave to prattle on uninterrupted, repeatedly. And based on the clips I’ve watched, there was a pretty steady stream of sewage spilling from Dave’s mouth. One might even call it bullsh*t.

So. All this sturm und drang has led to yet another round of Dave Smith trending on social media. Along with Piers. And Natasha.

People are very lathered up.

More than a few are saying, “Piers is an antisemite.”

Piers says: “No. I am not. I platform all kinds of people.”

True.

But, again, as one “X” participant pointed out, Piers has a habit of having given very free rein to more than a few virulent antisemites. And he did not interrupt them as he did Natasha. (Sorry, can’t find the post now listing them all and didn’t bookmark the comment – and only so much time I’ll spend on looking for it. But the list was long and includes some A-list Jew haters, among them, Kanye West (or whatever he calls himself these days, Dan Blizerian and various pro Hamas shills.)

It’s all out there. Piers would not dispute having platformed these cretins, but he’d try to make the argument, I guess, that unlike Natasha they did not spew “bullsh*t” and lies. Therefore, he allowed them to natter on and, while doing so, amplified their Jew-hatred to millions of viewers.

I mean, this is surmise, of course. I’m just applying Piers’ own metrics to try to understand on what basis he does what he does. I’m looking for some thought rigor. Discipline. Consistency of standards. Something more helpful than that she was spewing “bullsh*t.” That’s kind of gutter. Piers Morgan can do better.

Then there’s the gender issue. Because Natasha is a woman, many online commenters are also saying, “Piers is a misogynist and a bully.”

I dunno. Maybe. Maybe he is an antisemite too. But I don’t think so. I don’t think he’s that thoughtful.

In any event, Piers dismisses the misogyny thing. Natasha is just a bullsh*t artist, it seems. That’s that.

After the tsunami of attacks on his integrity, Piers posted that he went back and reviewed certain clips. He doubled down on his criticism of Natasha.

For the most part, Natasha sat back and watched the food fight. Aside from a couple of barbs, she kept her online powder dry. Smart.

Is there a message in this mess?

I believe there is. Clickbait gods like Piers Morgan and shows like Uncensored are metaphors for the complete mess that the west has made of itself. No moral compass. No boundaries. Which results in the legitimization of the most obscene, hateful people. I mean. Piers platformed Kanye at the height of his Jew-hating moment. And, no. Sorry. Piers does not work to ensure that he balances the hate evenly—not that I would condone that approach. This is the problem. There is no edit button in society. There is no sense of limits. No right and wrong. We are absolutely rudderless. And so deeply fucked.

And Piers’ lodestar, it seems, is ratings. Period.

In closing, the most profound and meaningful rebuttal to Piers’ ambulance-chasing ethics was articulated by UK comic Lee Kern, who also happens to be a man of intellectual substance. He is thoughtful. Read every word of his smackdown of Piers. Brilliant. Moving. And a total bullseye.

WHY I DECLINED PIERS MORGAN

The Piers Morgan show has repeatedly asked me on as a guest. Their first request was on November 1st 2023 - three weeks after the muslim terrorists Hamas raped and kidnapped hostages.

I declined and have done ever since. Their most recent request was this April.

The reason why I declined is because of something Piers tweeted in those early days of the war started by Hamas. Whilst we in Israel and the Jewish world were grieving - real grief - because people had been raped, people had been murdered, people had been kidnapped - women, children and babies - whilst we were doing this Piers Morgan was boasting.

He was celebrating.

He was celebrating how well his viewing figures were doing in his episodes talking about the massacre.

“Six million” he bragged in one of his tweets.

At the time I glibly I said to myself, “I’m glad someone’s doing well out of the rape and kidnaps.” But it truly was despicable and it really gets to the heart of the man. He has no real moral code or value system other than attention. He’s an archetypal, soulless media whore. His show is not designed to illuminate. It is to simply create a freak-show of vapid conflict that appeals to people who simply want a verbal fistfight.

Pigs fighting in shit is Piers’ idea of journalism.

In truth he knows what he does isn’t journalism. At best he might think what he does is entertainment. But it isn’t that either. It’s simply shitting excrement into public discourse. And the reasonable and legitimate outrage people feel when shit is pumped into conversations that have real life or death ramifications - Piers - in his misplaced pride - will mistake - or pretend to mistake - for a journalistic job well done.

None the less, when his people first wrote to me i thought maybe i could guide Piers into doing some real journalism that would allow the public to weigh up primary evidence for themselves.

I replied:

“I can’t speak this week. Also I don’t think I should be a priority. I’m very much in favour of letting people directly affected be pushed to the front of the conversation. Yesterday I met a lady in Sderot who is probably the most perfect and energetic guest Piers could ever engage with - and she was directly in the middle of a battle that lasted 36 hours.”

This opportunity to provide viewers with primary evidence and a firsthand account of the massacre didn’t happen.

There was no serious interest in understanding this conflict. I imagine this applies to any other topic that might be covered.

Persistent, his people tried to get me on the show again a few days later.

I replied:

“I know you’re keen to have me. I’m doing something unfashionable that maybe lots of people don’t do anymore: I’ve come here to actually see where the atrocities happened for myself and to speak to survivors so I’m not just some random internet guy mouthing off. Please let me know when you’ve spoken to ——-. I’ve told her you will be in touch. I don’t want to give her false hope because she’s someone who has been part of horrific things and is grieving for her community. Please don’t let me be involved in adding to her roller coaster”

It didn’t happen.

His people wrote to me again a few days later to try and get me on the show. I continued to believe that if the public were to be illuminated, then the testimony of an actual survivor was more important than my opinions. So

I replied firmly:

“What happened with ——- appearing on the show? She’s a clear coherent voice who experienced a massacre first hand. Her entire community are now refugees spread across a country. You should be interviewing her.” His team replied: “We couldn’t make it work, we’ve lots of guests and little time alas. Keen to have you on.”

I replied:

They ignored this. “Lots of guests and little time?” Well here I was offering to step back to give them a real story. But they weren’t interested. They wanted me because I say the words “shit” and “fuck” and have a comedy background that allows me to be engagingly garish. I’m self aware. I own what I do. But I still seemed to have more of a journalistic value system than Piers and his team and still seemed to believe education and illumination on this horrible situation was more important than just getting on high octane personalities who would argue so that Piers could get more attention and money. And yet again, a few weeks later, they requested me on as a guest. And they sent me eight more requests over the following months that I didn’t reply to. So I’ll wind this up by saying Piers Morgan isn’t going to make or break what happens in this conflict. It won’t end until the Islamic fundamentalists Hamas release the hostages and their jihadist tyranny over the population of Gaza - which has included control over their food supply - ends. Finally, seeing as Piers Morgan has shown himself to be demonstrably thin skinned and I’ll most likely be blocked by him if he sees this, I may as well finish on the most important point. This is what society knows. This is what even his viewers know. And it’s worth us stating even though it’s a given: The most objectionable and off putting thing about any Piers Morgan show is Piers Morgan and the poorly crafted simulation of a personality that he has constructed for himself. Piers Morgan as a human being is so very clearly, and so very palpably, a bloviating toad. You couldn’t put together a less charming conglomeration of DNA in the rough approximate shape of a human being. He is a slimy bog creature. A toadstool dwelling peasant, high on the methane emitted from his own arsehole. More prolapsed rectum than a man, his anus of a mouth emits half digested ideas like loose excremental sludge. He is a sloshing barrel of smugness and pus. Every pore in his bloated face oozes misplaced arrogance. Misplaced because nothing about his presentation or content merits any kind of pride. In short, ladies and gentlemen, Piers Morgan is a man who can only be described as the Manchester United of cunts.

And, here, is… Piers’ response:

Hi Lee, I find all this a tad bemusing because I have absolutely no idea who you are, and had even less idea anyone on my show was trying to book you. Suffice it to say, you’re now banned anyway.

You be the judge.

P.S. Not to be outdone, comic Dave shared his thoughts on the merciless online pillorying of Himself and Piers by the pro-Israel crowd. And none other than Candace Owens—she who has been untethered in her hateful commentary on Israel and Jews for some time.

When Candace Owens commiserates with you, then I suggest taking a “time out.” But methinks that comic Dave is just revving up.