Why won’t Piers Morgan just haud his wheesht?
WHEES H T. I’ve always been told it should be haud. But there are rare occasions when yer wheesht needs to be expressed, vehemently and passionately. Today, consider ma wheesht well and truly freed.
Piers Morgan. Whit a pure fandan. Clearlyasthin-skinnedasThe Donald, Morgan’s nose was out of joint when Ewan McGregor decided not to honour a breakfast show interview upon learning it was to be conducted by Morgan after the presenter and former tabloid editor referred to the unprecedented women’s global anti-Trump marches as “vacuous” and attended by “rabid feminists”.
Taking to Twitter, (like his transatlantic pal) Morgan described the Scottish actor as a “narrow-minded, stupendously self-aggrandising, anti-democratic little twerp” and a “paedophile-loving hypocrite” (referring to McGregor’s praise for the directing skills of convicted child abuser Roman Polanski). I’ve never been a fan of Piers Morgan. He always struck me as a man with one eye on the main chance, one eye on the mirror. It’s no great surprise that Morgan has such a profound kinship with the 45th President of the United States of America, a man whose nastiness is matched only by his narcissism. Clearly empowered by the “alternative fact” reality of his transatlantic chum, here is pontificating Piers, the attack dog of the reactionary right, wilfully contorting, confusing and courting controversy when it comes to the concept of truth.
Why am I surprised? Isn’t this the same man that carried Photoshopped images on his front page? Isn’t this the man said to have ignited the ire of Murdoch for publishing photos of Catherine Victoria Lockwood (first wife of Charles Spencer) at an addiction clinic?
Isn’t this the man who printed the headline “Achtung Surrender” about an England v Germany football match? Isn’t this the man who took over the prestigious Larry King TV slot and made history by delivering the lowest-ever ratings in 21 years for CNN in primetime? Wasn’t he part of the same morally bankrupt Fleet Street that hacked the phones of celebrities, MPs and private citizens, a man Lord Leveson described as “clearly … aware that [phone hacking] was taking place in the press as a whole … sufficiently unembarrassed by what was criminal behaviour that he was prepared to joke about it”
EWAN McGregor, star of T2 Trainspotting, has been actively involved in women’s rights since his appointment as a Unicef ambassador 13 years ago. His wife and daughters attended one of those marches, as did my best pal, his wife and newborn daughter. Had I been near a march, I too would have attended. By extension, Morgan’s comments about the marches insulted not just 51 per cent of the population but also my nearest and dearest and, indeed, me.
Some might say McGregor should have given the interview and argued his position. But to meaningfully engage, one has to have some sense that the opinions of those who are debating are there to be changed. I believe McGregor’s position to cry off was borne out by Morgan’s subsequent and shocking attack.
Who does Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan think he is? We all know we live in an age where controversy sells. Morgan is a man who has used his creaky celebrity to further a career of questionable judgment. If you, a nurse or joiner, had been inculcated in the long list of transgressions the former newspaper editor has been linked to, would you still be employed? Would you be celebrated with a primetime TV show?
Our celebrity-obsessed age seems ever ready to forgive the transgressions? E of any vaguely famous Jocky-cum-lately, not wanting to hold such “high-profile figures” to the same standard as regular folk. Indulging them with a platform to meaninglessly and unthinkingly attack one’s firmly held beliefs is an indulgence too far. Perhaps Ewan McGregor’s stance might make some more of us question the value of those we elevate to positions of prominence.