Piers Morgan host of Piers Morgan Uncensored has once again garnered attention on social media over his handling of a high-stakes debate between Indian and Pakistani guests on the ongoing military standoff and ceasefire between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.
The episode, which featured Pakistan’s former Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistani podcaster Shehzad Ghias Shaikh, Indian journalist Barkha Dutt, and Indian influencer Ranveer Allahbadia (aka BeerBiceps), was billed as a balanced discussion on regional tensions.
However, critics across platforms accused the show of poor moderation, nationalist bias, and devolving into theatrics.
Talk show-turned-shouting Match?
Commenters on YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and Reddit were quick to criticise the episode’s chaotic format.
Indeed quite poorly moderated and missing struture. More sort of chitchat like desi talk shows. Didn’t understand what this @BeerBicepsGuy was doing here! Has nothing to do with this sort of discussion and in presence of serious and sober ppl.
— Sheroff Shafi (@Sheroff_Shafi) May 13, 2025
That debate was a mess
— Stealth Falconer (@Stealthfalconer) May 13, 2025
Ranveer sounded drunk, Barkha acted like a soap star, and Piers thought he was Churchill.
Pakistan didn’t even need to try. 😂
Morgan, known for combative hosting, was criticised for failing to challenge inflammatory claims made by the Indian guests. Allahbadia accused Pakistan of exporting terrorism and used visual props during his remarks, drawing online criticism for lacking evidence or diplomatic nuance.
Dutt, previously viewed as a critic of India’s ruling establishment, also adopted a confrontational tone. Pakistani guests Khar and Shaikh attempted to focus on international law and the risks of escalation, but were repeatedly interrupted or sidelined.
The episode’s chaotic structure drew comparisons to regional talk shows, with many viewers describing it as a missed opportunity for constructive dialogue.
Social media reactions also noted the absence of meaningful moderation or accountability for unsubstantiated claims.
Despite the panel’s intention to analyse the ceasefire and diplomatic fallout, the conversation quickly descended into a loud exchange of accusations and political messaging.
Analysts said the format reinforced nationalist narratives and failed to provide clarity on the conflict’s core issues.
The segment has prompted renewed scrutiny of Western media’s approach to South Asian conflicts and the risks of platforming divisive voices without adequate editorial control.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ