Piers Morgan Host of Piers Morgan not censored Once again draws attention to social networks on its management of a debate with high issues between the Indian and Pakistani guests on the current military dead end and the ceasefire between the two nuclear weapons neighbors.
The episode, which featured the former Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Hina Rabbani Khar, the Pakistani Podcastor Shehzad Ghias Shaikh, the Indian journalist Barkha Dutt, and the Indian influencer Ranveer Allahbadia (Aka Beerbiceps), were presented as a balanced discussion on the regional dizions.
However, criticisms of all platforms accused the spectacle of poor moderation, nationalist bias and transformation into theater.
Talk-show game turned?
Commentators on YouTube, X (formerly Twitter) and Reddit quickly criticized the chaotic format of the episode.
Indeed, a fairly poorly moderate and missing structure. No more chitchat pieces like talk shows desi. I didn’t understand what that @BeerbicepsGuy did here! Has nothing to do with this kind of discussion and in the presence of serious and sober PPL.
– Sheroff Shafi (@sheroff_shafi) May 13, 2025
This debate was a mess
Ranveer sounded drunk, Barkha acted like a soap star, and Piers thought he was Churchill.
Pakistan didn’t even need to try. 😂
– Falconer Stealth (@stealthfalconer) May 13, 2025
Morgan, known for combative accommodation, was criticized for having failed to challenge the inflammatory claims made by Indian guests. Allahbadia accused Pakistan of exporting terrorism and used visual accessories during his remarks, arousing online criticisms for lack of evidence or diplomatic nuances.
DUTT, previously considered as a critic of the leading establishment of India, also adopted a conflicting tone. Pakistani guests Khar and Shaikh tried to focus on international law and the risks of climbing, but were interrupted several times or sidelined.
The chaotic structure of the episode made comparisons with regional talk shows, many viewers describing it as a failed opportunity for constructive dialogue.
Social media reactions have also noted the lack of moderation or significant responsibility for unfounded affirmations.
Despite the Panel’s intention to analyze the ceasefire and diplomatic benefits, the conversation quickly became a high exchange of accusations and political messaging.
Analysts said the format has strengthened nationalist accounts and failed to clarify the main problems of the conflict.
The segment caused a meticulous examination of the Western media approach to South Asian conflicts and the risks of voice platform voice without adequate editorial control.
