Piers Morgan and CNN to Part Ways Due to Low Ratings and "The Provincialism" of CNN's Audience, Says the New York Times

Actually, the reasons could include the British police's recent questioning of Piers "under caution" in regard to the 2011 phone hacking scandal.

What's astonishing to me is that the New York Times attributes Morgan's low ratings to the "provincialism" of CNN's audience.

There have been times when the CNN host Piers Morgan didn’t seem to like America very much — and American audiences have been more than willing to return the favor. Three years after taking over for Larry King, Mr. Morgan has seen the ratings for “Piers Morgan Live” hit some new lows, drawing a fraction of viewers compared with competitors at Fox News and MSNBC.

It’s been an unhappy collision between a British television personality who refuses to assimilate — the only football he cares about is round and his lectures on guns were rife with contempt — and a CNN audience that is intrinsically provincial. After all, the people who tune into a cable news network are, by their nature, deeply interested in America.

His evidence for this? The writer David Carr claims he himself is guilty of such provincial thinking:

. When something important or scary happens in America, many of us have an immediate reflex to turn on CNN. When I find Mr. Morgan telling me what it all means, I have a similar reflex to dismiss what he is saying. It is difficult for him to speak credibly on significant American events because, after all, he just got here.

Carr goes on to consider two other British hosts who have had success in America: Simon Cowell (?!!?!) and David Frost. But he finds them unlike Morgan, so he sticks to his "provincial" theory.

For some reason, he fails to consider the British/Iranian Christiane Amanapour.

Carr then blames it on America's provincial attitude towards guns:

In a sense, Mr. Morgan is a prisoner of two islands: Britain and Manhattan. While I may share his feelings about the need for additional strictures on guns, having grown up in the Midwest, I know that many people come by their guns honestly and hold onto them dearly for sincere reasons.

Mr. Morgan’s approach to gun regulation was more akin to King George III, peering down his nose at the unruly colonies and wondering how to bring the savages to heel. He might have wanted to recall that part of the reason the right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution is that Britain was trying to disarm the citizenry at the time.

He regrets none of it, but clearly understands his scolding of “stupid” opponents of gun laws was not everyone’s cup of tea.

That may be true, but what does that have to do with "provincialism"? If anyone's "provincial" here, it appears to be Morgan himself, confessedly, per Carr, a "prisoner" the islands of Britain and Manhattan.

But it's CNN's audience's fault for not appreciating this pudgy, poorly-informed histrionic doofus' take on the Second Amendment.

posted by Ace at 11:51 AM

| Access Comments