Piers Morgan Interview of Ben Shapiro

McQuillin Murphy
October 9, 2013

The Pennsylvania State University

English 137H
Dr. Mary Miles

Murphy 1

One of the most divisive debates in modern American society revolves around the role of
the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, containing the right for citizens to bear arms, and its
role in the 21st Century. In the wake of several tragic shootings, specifically that of Newtown,
Connecticut, many opponents of the 2nd Amendment seized the kairotic opportunity to raise the
level of debate about American gun policy. One such debate was that of Piers Morgan and Ben
Shapiro in early 2013.
Piers Morgan is the host of a popular nightly interview show, Piers Morgan Live, on
CNN. In the wake of the Newtown massacre, he has focused on the issue of gun control in many
of his episodes. He is British, former editor of The Daily Mirror, and an experienced interviewer.
Ben Shapiro is the editor-at-large of Breitbart.com, a conservative website. He is also a
prominent American conservative pundit. In early January of 2013, Morgan had Shapiro on his
show for an interview. The ensuing debate held an interesting combination of good and bad
rhetorical tactics.
To analyze their debate, we must first understand under what conditions it took place.
Piers Morgan Live is a nightly talk show that airs on CNN late every night. While Morgan and
Shapiro were the debaters and their arguments are therefore presumably directed at each other, it
is important to keep in mind that they were also debating in front of a live television audience.
They could expect several hundred thousand viewers in North America to be tuning in live, and
the videos of their debates have received hundreds of thousands of views, collectively, over the
past ten months. Both Morgan and Shapiro also knew that their live audience, that of CNN, was
likely to be mostly liberal; 51% of regular CNN viewers identified as Democrats, while just 18%
identified as Republicans.

Murphy 2

Morgan and Shapiro were serving roles in this show that are important to note. Morgan is
the interviewer, as well as a debater. This will prove convenient for him, as he does not
necessarily need to provide counterarguments to Shapiro; he just needs to ask the questions and
provide counterpoints. It is also his show, which will prove to give him added control over the
debate. Shapiro, on the other hand, is supposed to answer Morgans questions in an unfamiliar
environment, in front of an audience whose opinions on the subject of gun control are likely to
be contrary to his.
The opening of the debate is one of the most striking points of the entire interview. Just
26 seconds in, only in his first statement of the entire video, Shapiro had accused Morgan of
standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook. He clearly showed up with an
aggressive plan of action in mind. This is an interesting tactic, trying to come out strong to throw
off the opposing debater, but one that backfired awfully. Shapiro destroyed his legitimacy, his
ethos, amongst an audience that was likely unfamiliar with him and waiting to form an opinion.
By accusing Morgan of using the deaths of 20 6-7 year old children as piece of blackmail and
shame toward opponents, Shapiro insulted Morgan in one of the worst ways imaginable. The
offense Morgan took to this is clear, and it was a strategically terrible move for Shapiro to make.
He would go on to spend the rest of the interview trying to rebuild his credibility. Additionally,
Shapiro handed Morgan a copy of the Constitution, which he had brought along. In doing so, he
looked smug and eager to make a point. These are hardly conducive traits toward establishing a
good rapport with the audience. Piers Morgan ignored it at first, but used it against Shapiro in the
end.
The debate being the subject of analysis, it is important to establish the arguments the
debaters were putting forth. This, it turns out, is difficult to do with this interview. Morgan says

Murphy 3

he, Mark Kelly, and Gabrielle Giffords all want the same thing, which is to have assault
riflesremoved from civilian hands. Gabrielle Giffords is a former Congresswoman, who was
shot in the head during a mass shooting at an event in Tucson, Arizona; Kelly is her husband.
Now, they are two of the leaders in the fight for increased gun control. By grouping himself with
them, Morgan is also attempting to build his ethos. This is a recurring point throughout the
interview. It is important to note, however, that Morgan does not make this statement, the first
time he states any sort of position on the issue, until 3 minutes and 23 seconds into the 14 minute,
4 second interview. That means that the first time a position is stated in the debate is 24% of the
way through the interview.
Shapiro, who has already suffered major damage to his credibility, first states his position
even later. In fact, 31.75% of the interview has gone by before the second debater even states his
position. He does not do it until just after Morgan sums up what he presumes as Shapiros
position. Shapiro was wrong to wait so long, because Morgan was able to give the first word and
first impression of what Shapiros position is. Shapiro was left to simply respond, leaving him at
a strategic disadvantage.
In addition to these themes, there is a recurring argument about whether or not using the
terms liberal/conservative or left/right are appropriate in the larger gun control debate. Shapiro
aligns himself with the right with the statement, I think that the reason its about left and right
here is because fundamentally the right believes the basis for the 2nd Amendment, and they
believe in the 2nd Amendment. He also uses this statement to fashion himself and his supporters
as the faction of the debate who support the Constitution, which serves to improve his credibility
through the unconscious emotional response the Constitution draws from Americans, the primary
audience of Piers Morgan Live.

Murphy 4

It seems that Morgan and Shapiro both decided independently that the winner of the
debate was the one who emerged with the most credibility left. Emotional, or pathos, related
arguments are largely ignored. They left nearly all logical arguments at home, an aspect
exemplified by Morgans point about Sudafed. Morgan placed 6 packets of Sudafed on the table
and stated that it was illegal for him to buy this at a Wal-Mart. However, he pointed out, he was
perfectly capable of buying an AR-15 assault rifle at the same Wal-Mart. This is not logic, but
rather a logical process. It incites the audience, really the television audience, to connect the two
and think it is ridiculous that you can buy an assault rifle, but not cold medicine. This is without
actual logical basis, however, because drug policies and gun policies are two unrelated and
independently complicated issues. It is irrelevant to the debate at hand.
At the height of the ever recurrent left/right argument within the interview, Morgan
changes the topic entirely to bring up a letter penned by Ronald Reagan, which throws off any
rhythm Shapiro may have found in his debating. This is worth noting for a few reasons. First, it
is an effective use of Morgans use as the host and interviewer to support his debate technique.
Also, it is the second time Morgan tries to use this point against Shapiro. Toward the beginning
of the interview he asks, Do you believe that if you had an assault weapon ban, statistics prove
you could dry out the supply of these guns and make them less accessible to criminals? It
seems like an innocent enough question, but Morgan is secretly hoping Shapiro will disagree
with that statement so that he can bring up the Reagan letter, part of which reads statistics
prove we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. The
letter makes the point that Reagan supports gun control legislation and agrees with the view
Morgan takes two decades later. First, Shapiro does not take the bait, but later in the interview,

Murphy 5

Morgan bring up the letter again. This time he reads it and asks if Shapiro agrees with Reagan or
not.
Shapiro is at this point stuck. Reagan is a pillar of the neo-conservative movement and
conservatives today are constantly praising and referring to his ideals. He has two options: agree
with Reagan, thereby agreeing with Morgan, or disagree with Reagan, which would degrade his
credibility amongst his conservative supporters. Shapiro chooses to disagree. However, his ethos
is actually not degraded by this; Shapiro know very well that only a small amount of the likely
viewers are Republicans and estimates that the impact his disagreement with Reagan will have
on his base is marginal. He feels comfortable stating that he disagrees with this icon of the
conservative movement because he knows exactly who his audience is. In turn, Shapiro
neutralizes Morgans strategy, which he is able to do because he put the rhetorical foresight into
the debate and identified his audience.
The body language of the debaters is also interesting and certain noticeable features
emerge as the interview progresses. Morgan generally appears physically overconfident, but this
mask his actual lack of confidence. As the interview progresses, and Shapiro repairs his ethos,
Morgan becomes nervously aggressive. He sits forward in his chair and looks away or adjusts
items on his desk when he makes a new point. Shapiro sits without moving, generally upright.
He appears intimidated, clasping his hands together for comfort. Both appear unconfident;
Shapiro is out of place, whereas Morgan compensates with aggressiveness. This is a poor
rhetorical tactic, because his points come out easily rebuttable, decreasing his confidence further.
Finally, Piers goes for his grand finale. He begins moving his hands in the air, forcefully
toward Shapiro, suggesting a point of aggression and dominance. He points out the faults in
Shapiros argument, raises his voice, and brings up the Constitution again. He makes Shapiro

Murphy 6

look ridiculous and arrogant for bringing it along, as well as making Shapiro look as if he
underestimated Piers with You come in, you brandish your little book, as if I don't know
what's in there I know whats in your constitution I have been debating this for a long
time After this, the debate is over; any hope of salvaging it disappears as the argument
degrades to words even violent in nature, such as bullying and punching back twice as hard.
Morgan finishes with, You have made your point crystal clear. People aren't stupid; they can
make up their own minds. Ben Shapiro, thank you. This is one last jab implying Shapiro has
suggested the audience is stupid. He uses his contextual power to end the interview on that note.
He seems to win because he had the last word.
Morgan and Shapiro each applied a number of rhetorical tactics throughout the show.
Morgan can be faulted with abusing his power as the interviewer to avoid providing serious
logical rebuttals to Shapiros points. Also, he is aggressive toward Shapiro, perhaps in an effort
to create drama. One must keep in mind that he is responsible for maintaining his shows ratings.
He prepares a number of debate traps to attack his opponents ethos. This is a key point in his
rhetorical strategy: degrade the legitimacy of the opponent and his arguments will be seen as
invalid. Shapiro help Morgan achieve this, at least initially; his insulting declaration that Morgan
was standing on the graves of the children of Sandy Hook was a failed tactic that left him
recovering his ethos for the rest of the show. Both failed to bring logical arguments to the show.
Instead, they argued without clear positions, choosing to focus their time on destroying the
others credibility. Any emotional arguments, or pathos, were minimized; Morgan seldom
mentioned the victims of the mass shootings, the core of any such argument he could present.
Shapiro made brief connections between himself and the Constitution, eliciting a patriotic
reaction from the audience. He also talked about potential tyranny and government seizure of

Murphy 7

guns, in order to provoke fear. That said, most of the arguments of the two were ethos-related.
The winner was to be the one left standing with the most credibility. After such a negative and
unintellectual debate, neither had any.

Murphy 8

Works Cited
"Breitbart.com." Breitbart.com. Breitbart News Network, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/10/CNNs-Morgan-Slams-DownConstitution-Calls-It-Your-Little-Book>.
Kondolojy, Amanda. "Cable News Ratings for Friday, January 11, 2013." TVbytheNumbers. Zap
2 It, 14 Jan. 2013. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.
<http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/01/14/cable-news-ratings-for-friday-january-112013/165198/>.
"Partisanship and Cable News Audiences." Pew Research Center RSS. The Pew Charitable
Trusts, 30 Oct. 2009. Web. 09 Oct. 2013.
<http://www.pewresearch.org/2009/10/30/partisanship-and-cable-news-audiences/>.
"Piers Morgan Gets OWNED By Ben Shapiro." YouTube. YouTube, 10 Jan. 2013. Web. 09 Oct.
2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM>.