Piers Morgan host of Piers Morgan Uncensored Has once again been given attention to social media over his handling of a debate with high efforts between Indian and Pakistani guests on the ongoing military standoff and ceasefire between the two nuclear armed neighbors.
The episode, which contained Pakistan’s former Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistani Podcaster Shehzad Ghias Shaikh, Indian journalist Barkha Dutt and Indian influencer Ranveer Allahbadia (aka Beerbiceps), were invoiced as a balanced discussion about regional tensions.
However, critics across the platforms accused the show of bad moderation, nationalist bias and the settlement of theater.
Talk show-facing-shouting match?
Commentators to YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and Reddit was quick to criticize the chaotic format of the episode.
In fact, quite badly moderated and a lack of strut. More kind of chitchat like desi talk shows. Didn’t understand what this @Beerbicepsguy Went here! Have 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 appeared like a soap star, and Piers thought he was Churchill.
Pakistan didn’t even have to try. 😂
– Stealth Falconer (@stealthfalconer) May 13, 2025
Morgan, known for fighting hosting, was criticized for not challenging inflammatory claims from the Indian guests. Allahbadia accused Pakistan of exporting terrorism and used visual props during its comments and drawn online criticism for lack of evidence or diplomatic hue.
Dutt, previously considered a critic of India’s ruling business, also adopted a confrontational tone. Pakistani guests Khar and Shaikh tried to focus on international law and the risk of escalation, but was repeatedly interrupted or sidelined.
The chaotic structure of the episode made comparisons with regional talk shows, where many viewers describe it as a miss the possibility of constructive dialogue.
Reactions on social media also noted the absence of meaningful moderation or accountability for non -substitutes.
Despite the panel’s intention to analyze the ceasefire and diplomatic fallout, the conversation quickly fell into a high exchange of accusations and political messages.
Analysts said the format reinforced nationalist narratives and failed to clarify the core problems of the conflict.
The segment has led to renewed control of Western media’s approach to South Asian conflicts and the risk of platforming of divisive voices without adequate editorial control.
