Piers Morgan Stays Mum In Dubious Attempt To Extricate Himself From Phone-Hacking Scandal

Piers Morgan wasn’t looking like a stand up kind of guy today in Great Britain. During his testimony before a government inquiry about his alleged involvement in the phone hacking scandal, the CNN talk-show host came off as very suspicious when he refused to answer questions about the illegal activities alleged to have occurred on his watch as the editor of the Daily Mail between 1995 and 2004.

“I have no reason…to believe [hacking] was going on,” he told the London-based panel via video link.

During his intense grilling,  Morgan was asked whether he had listened at any time to a voicemail former Beatle Paul McCartney left for his then-wife, Heather Mills, to which the former America’s Got Talent judge admitted to have done so.  Morgan also acknowledged he heard Sir Paul singing “We Can Work It Out”  when the couple were trying to make up after a nasty fight. However;  on grounds that “it would compromise a source,”  the former editor declined to reveal the source of the tape or how he was able to hear the tape in the first place.

Mills had previously stated that there was no way anyone would have heard the message unless she was hacked.

Morgan adamantly denied having listened to a hacked message and refuted suggestions that he was “directly involved” in hiring private investigators to retrieve information for the tabloid. He also stated he did not condone the apparently widespread practice of paying police informants for tips.

Piers dug his hole deeper when he answered the question “whether eavesdropping in on a private recording was ethical?” with,

“It doesn’t necessarily follow that listening to someone else talking to someone else is unethical,” he told the panel.

Inquiry chairman Lord Justice Leveson subsequently threatened to call Mills in to testify that she did not give permission for anyone to listen to that voice message.

The one thing that Piers Morgan did finally confess to was that his staff digitally altered an August 1997 photo of the late Princess Diana and boyfriend Dodi Fayed to make it look like they were kissing.

“Yeah, it was a stupid thing to do,” he said, while in the same breath adding, “We didn’t actually con the public because it was exactly the same as the picture that was going to appear in a rival paper the next day…it was to do with the introduction of digital photography…[but] we all thought, ‘This is not a good idea.'”

Wow just when you thought you knew your news anchor/reality TV judge, they reveal a whole other side  that just doesn’t look good. Shame on you Piers Morgan!

 

Independent journalism still matters.

We hope this story was worth your time. For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed Black-owned and independently run. We didn't get here by waiting on ad budgets that were never built to prioritize us. Our readers did that.

Corporate support for Black media has always been thin. Outlets like ours get roughly 1% of the $170 billion spent on U.S. advertising each year, and that margin is shrinking further as advertisers walk back the DEI-linked commitments they made in 2020. That's the backdrop. It's not why we're asking.

The wider picture isn't any steadier. Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under, it's rarely the ones built to center a Black perspective from the ground up that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top