Piers Morgan Tonight

Replacing CNN’s Larry King, Piers Morgan is breathing fresh air into CNN’s late night schedule. Gruff, like King, can work for me, but it was time for something new and fresh. I had never heard of Morgan, but his first week’s line up with Oprah piqued my curiosity. Her line “Oh, you’re good,” sold me on giving this new show a chance. If Oprah thinks and interviewer is good, he must be. I like how Morgan interviewed her asking good and sometimes tough questions, without being aggressive. He’s respectful and intelligent with more polish than King.

Today I caught his interview of the famed Winklevoss twins, Cameron and Tyler, whose suit against Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook was portrayed in “The Social Network.” Morgan asked the questions I’d want to ask and challenged these young men as to why they still are seeking more money, why they still say Zuckerberg stole their idea, why they haven’t moved on and what they thought of the movie. Morgan challenges his subjects without being a jerk or patsy. His gets the tone just right and the British polish and idioms, which add to the appeal.

On the Winklevoss interview, I did think, “Just move on boys.” They claim it’s all about principles and that now there’s new evidence that shows that they deserve a bigger cut of the Facebook pie. It sure is hard to buy that. Their idea, even as they presented it, was for a social network for Harvard students. Facebook’s success is due to it’s openness, not the exclusivity the twins had in mind. Also, as I watched, I just agreed with Piers and the Harvard president’s character in the movie - move on and come up with the next idea. Yet they clung to the “it’s the principle” response. I just couldn’t live with myself and if I had a son (note not a daughter) who got ripped off by a business associate, how could I look him in the eye as I hadn’t fought for these rights and protections for the American business person yada, yada, yada.

I did like that Piers asked how much it was about money and how much about principle and followed up by saying, well, if it’s about principle, you’d be giving the money to charity . . .

On the movie they said they liked it as a film, but that the inner turmoil shown in Zuckerberg’s character. They contend he lacks that depth. Hmm.

In the end the Zuckerberg’s came off as guys who’re just stuck and hurt because they feel they’ve been cheated. They see their case as a fight for justice and insist that one must fight all injustice. Seems they didn’t learn to “choose one’s battles” at Harvard.

The interview was intriguing and Zuckerberg was invited to participate, but he refused. Morgan has an open invitation for him.
After this interview, Morgan welcomed Michael Oher, whose life was portrayed in the film The Blind Side. I just caught a bit of that. Oher has written a book and wanted to show that Hollywood, as it does, adjusted the truth to make a good drama. He did not need the young son, to teach him football plays using jam and ketchup bottles. He wasn’t as stupid as the movie shows. It was mildly interesting and I think the producers were right to put these two interviews on together and the time allotment was good. The Winklevoss claim is interesting, but after awhile they got repetitive. As a viewer the repetition was interesting in that it shows how these young men think and how stuck they are.