downing street confirms the prime minister has not yet received any further fines for breaking lockdown rules. supermarkets across the uk are limiting how much cooking oil customers are able to buy — as supplies are hit by the war in ukraine. tyson fury will take on dillian whyte later — in what's expected to be one of the biggest all—british heavyweight fights in boxing history. now on bbc news, the media show —piers morgan returns. hello, and welcome to the media show. our guest today is the star signing of rupert murdoch's new talktv network. it's piers morgan, of course. and he won'tjust have a show in the uk, it will also be streamed on fox nation in the us, it will be broadcast on sky news australia. as well as that, there is a column in the son, in the new york post, and there is a book deal with harpercollins, too. all of which is owned by rupert murdoch, all of which is a significant bet on one man grabbing the world's attention. let's hear why he thinks that bet is worth making. piers morgan, thank you for coming on the show. how does that happen, how does a deal get thrashed out? it was fortuitous, really. the whole good morning britain blow—up with the meghan markle thing, and the free speech debate, it was all raging in the uk, predominantly, around the world but predominantly in the uk. and rupert happened to be in the uk that summer, and he watched it all go down. and i think they had been toying with whether to do a new network, and i think he felt that if i was now available, that it was worth having a go. and so they had to get me, and i had a few suitors, as i think has been well documented. and as soon as rupert came knocking with his company, with the global tentacles it has and the ability for me to do, as you said in your intro, to do columns, to do books, to do crime documentaries i have been doing as well, you know, it seemed to me an irresistible chance to go back and work for my first big mentor, and also to do all of the things that i love doing under the umbrella of one company. so, irresistible, but you had other suitors and i am sure you negotiated hard. i'm just interested, how does that work? do you sit down with rupert murdoch at a table and go, well, all right, i will take this much for doing this, or if you throw this in, i will give you, i will take a bit more? how does it... or are your lawyers doing that? i had representatives acting on my behalf, but we had a few conversations. and i think that we were basically in agreement that the kind of show that i was proposing fitted very well with what he wanted for the wider network of talktv. it is a show that defends free speech, it is a show that i think will uphold the pillars of democracy in a time when society is, i think, under more threat to free speech and freedom of expression than i have known it in my lifetime. and you have been very critical of the way that you had to leave itv, but before that blow—up, as you called it, did you have any pressure from itv, previous to that famous walk—out, where you felt you couldn't say what you wanted to? no. in fact, the sadness for me about it, other than i was loving doing the show, and we were breaking ratings records left, right, and centre, including on the last day. i know you don't want to hear this but we finally beat the bbc, they told me that was a hill we would never climb. so, i felt the show was on fire, it was doing exactly what we set out to do, which was me leading with very with very strident opinions, suzanna reid, my co—presenter having her strong opinions, and creating a national debate about whatever the issues may be. the sad thing is that itv had always been unbelievably strong in protecting my right to express my honestly held opinions, right to the end, and suddenly they lost their bottle. hold on a minute, itv�*s chief executive says they defended you vigorously, and there was no way we would be absolutely notjust endorsing but championing freedom of speech and freedom of expression. well, why am i sitting here doing another show then? well, you chose to leave, says itv. well, i chose to leave because it turned out, they didn't tell me this at the time, it turned out meghan markle had written to dame carolyn the night before i was invited to apologise or leave, demanding my head on a plate. i was told, either you issue a public apology for effectively disbelieving meghan markle, because i had disbelieved what she told oprah winfrey, or i had to give up the show which i loved. so, if itv want to try and play semantics about this, let me be very clear, that is what happened. and what they didn't tell me, and which would have been interesting to me as part of the general debate, they didn't tell me meghan markle had personally contacted dame carolyn, and i believe, from what i was told, used phrases like, "we are both women, and we are both mothers." i mean, as if that had something to do with it. so, i felt that the way that i was handled at the end was a shame, given how supportive itv had previously been. well, they say they didn't want you to leave and they say that they defended your right to free speech. well, hang on. they didn't. let's be clear. if they defended my right to free speech, then i wouldn't have been asked to apologise or leave myjob. ofcom then later came back and defended my right to free speech. but ofcom also said, with reference to some of your statements about not believing that meghan markle had had suicidal thoughts, they said, ofcom, we were particularly concerned about mr morgan's approach to such an important and serious issue, and his apparent disregard for the seriousness of anyone expressing suicidal thoughts, we also heard from the charity mind, it was disappointed and concerned, and that people, when they share this, need to be treated with dignity, respect, and empathy. i mean, presumably, you will agree you didn't treat meghan markle with respect in that moment. i'vejust find her, i'm afraid, a witness that is not very credible. and my point is that i made very forcibly on the show was is, as she claimed, she went to two senior members of the royal household and told them she was suicidal, and they said, as she put it, that she couldn't get any help because it would be bad for the brand, let's have the names of those people and they should be fired. but here we are, over a year later, there isn't a shred of evidence to support that claim. nor is there a shred of evidence to support either of the two racism claims. but you could have expressed doubts about meghan markle and what she was saying in a way that was more respectful of the broader issues of people having suicidal thoughts, which ofcom and perhaps more relevantly a which ofcom and perhaps more releva ntly a leading which ofcom and perhaps more relevantly a leading mental health charities say they are concerned about. i charities say they are concerned about. . ., , ., about. i am entitled to my opinion and i have — about. i am entitled to my opinion and i have no _ about. i am entitled to my opinion and i have no desire _ about. i am entitled to my opinion and i have no desire to _ about. i am entitled to my opinion and i have no desire to diminish i about. i am entitled to my opinion | and i have no desire to diminish the importance of an issue like suicidal serious mental health or racism or any of the other issues that she touched on in the oprah winfrey interview. but as a journalist every instinct in me was, is it true? and i reached the conclusion pretty quickly that it wasn't. now, if she was to produce evidence that supported her allegations and we are still waiting then i may revise my position and i might be more sensitive but i am afraid, when i watched it, ifelt she sensitive but i am afraid, when i watched it, i felt she was sensitive but i am afraid, when i watched it, ifelt she was being sensitive but i am afraid, when i watched it, i felt she was being an actress, spinning yarn after yarn to cause enormous damage to our royal family and institution of the monarchy. and i wasn't going to have it. �* ., , ., monarchy. and i wasn't going to have it. �* ., ., ., monarchy. and i wasn't going to have it. ., ., ., , it. and now you have a different show, it. and now you have a different show. you _ it. and now you have a different show. you are _ it. and now you have a different show, you are not _ it. and now you have a different show, you are not on _ it. and now you have a different show, you are not on itv, - it. and now you have a different show, you are not on itv, you l it. and now you have a different l show, you are not on itv, you are it. and now you have a different - show, you are not on itv, you are on rupert murdoch's programme, you are rehearsing at the moment, i assume. i noticed earlier you said it was too un—cancel those who have been cancelled. so who i'll be going to hear from that cannot get in the media elsewhere?— hear from that cannot get in the media elsewhere? cancel culture issue is not _ media elsewhere? cancel culture issue is not about... _ media elsewhere? cancel culture issue is not about... who - media elsewhere? cancel culture issue is not about... who are - media elsewhere? cancel culture | issue is not about... who are you getting on? i am not going to tell you whom i am not going to tell you who my guests are. who you whom i am not going to tell you who my guests are.— you whom i am not going to tell you who my guests are. who is failing to net access who my guests are. who is failing to get access to — who my guests are. who is failing to get access to high-profile _ who my guests are. who is failing to get access to high-profile media - get access to high—profile media that you would like to have on your programme? i that you would like to have on your programme?— programme? i would love to get jk rowlin: programme? i would love to get jk rowling on. _ programme? i would love to get jk rowling on. for _ programme? i would love to get jk rowling on, for example, - programme? i would love to get jk rowling on, for example, the - programme? i would love to get jk i rowling on, for example, the author who has been appallingly vilified and there has been a massive attempt to cancel her, it has been unsuccessful because she is extremely wealthy and can look after herself. but the abuse that has been meted out to herfor herself. but the abuse that has been meted out to her for effectively defending women's rights, has been an absolute disgrace. you defending women's rights, has been an absolute disgrace.— an absolute disgrace. you are not suggesting _ an absolute disgrace. you are not suggesting that — an absolute disgrace. you are not suggesting that if _ an absolute disgrace. you are not suggesting that iij _ an absolute disgrace. you are not suggesting that iij rowling - suggesting that iij rowling wouldn't get in the mainstream media. �* , ., ., . media. but she had a lunch with women recently, _ media. but she had a lunch with women recently, many - media. but she had a lunch with women recently, many of - media. but she had a lunch with women recently, many of them | media. but she had a lunch with - women recently, many of them who have been cancelled,...— have been cancelled,... university professor kathleen _ have been cancelled,... university professor kathleen stott, - have been cancelled,... university professor kathleen stott, we - have been cancelled,... university professor kathleen stott, we can i professor kathleen stott, we can discuss how she was treated at her university, but in the context of the media...— university, but in the context of the media... �* . , ., the media... but that is the wrong context. the media... but that is the wrong context- let _ the media... but that is the wrong context. let me _ the media... but that is the wrong context. let me let _ the media... but that is the wrong context. let me let me _ the media... but that is the wrong context. let me let me clarify - the media... but that is the wrong | context. let me let me clarify what i mean by cancel culture. it is not about whether they can get interviews, it is about whether do people like kathleen stott lose theirjobs were holding an opinion,? although theirjobs were holding an opinion,? althouthk rowling isn't wealthy enough to sustain the barrage, we have to ask ourselves is this what we want in a democracy? do we want to see university professors who hold honest views which are not remotely contentious, do we want to see them driven out of theirjobs by a bunch of students? but see them driven out of their “obs by a bunch of students?* a bunch of students? but there are limits to free _ a bunch of students? but there are limits to free speech, _ a bunch of students? but there are limits to free speech, mainly - limits to free speech, mainly around, i could have a quote of yours here, you shouldn't be cancelled for having an opinion, i'm less you are genuinely spewing hateful stuff. on your programme, where is a line drawn? would you have guessed to suggest vaccines against covid—i9 don't work? have guessed to suggest vaccines against covid-19 don't work? because i would against covid-19 don't work? because i would want — against covid-19 don't work? because i would want to _ against covid-19 don't work? because i would want to expose _ against covid-19 don't work? because i would want to expose that _ against covid-19 don't work? because i would want to expose that thought l i would want to expose that thought process which i think has been extremely dangerous, i would want to expose them with facts, i would want to let these people who, by the way, there are a lot of people who think this, and they have been encouraged to think it by nonsense on the internet, i would want to hear whether they heard it, why they believe it, and damn them with facts. that is how a democracy should function. if you let these kind of debates purely operate online, that is where the trouble starts. i do believe in shining a light on some of these views like that. but when i get someone on who preached racial hatred towards people and wanted to cause violent conduct towards any minority group, no i wouldn't. so there are obvious limitations that where free speech would lead. in america, you can't run into theatres and shout fire, for example. we know there are logical limits to this.— logical limits to this. let's take the dru: logical limits to this. let's take the drug ivermectin, _ logical limits to this. let's take the drug ivermectin, which - logical limits to this. let's take the drug ivermectin, which we| logical limits to this. let's take i the drug ivermectin, which we are well aware of, which some people have been treating as a treatment for covid, despite there not being studies to back it up, would you put them on a to challenge people? yes. joe roan them on a to challenge people? yes. joe rogan did — them on a to challenge people? yes. joe rogan did that _ them on a to challenge people? yes joe rogan did that and it was a really interesting debate about which of these theories, which have huge followings now around the world, during the pandemic, which of them have any merit or not. at world, during the pandemic, which of them have any merit or not.- them have any merit or not. at which oint does them have any merit or not. at which point does it — them have any merit or not. at which point does it become _ them have any merit or not. at which point does it become an _ point does it become an irresponsible act? i point does it become an irresponsible act? point does it become an irresonsible act? ~ ., ., ., irresponsible act? i think a lot of --eole irresponsible act? i think a lot of people would — irresponsible act? i think a lot of people would criticise _ irresponsible act? i think a lot of people would criticise the - irresponsible act? i think a lot of people would criticise the bbc i irresponsible act? i think a lot of| people would criticise the bbc for refusing to ever go down these rows of debate they have the truth. and yet we know in the pandemic that scientists have changed their own mind many times, whether it be about the efficacy of masks, whether it be about the ability of vaccines to present transmission. i myself have changed my view about coronavirus many times in this pandemic. isn’t many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern _ many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern about _ many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern about joe _ many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern aboutjoe rogan many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern about joe rogan and many times in this pandemic. isn't the concern aboutjoe rogan and in the concern aboutjoe rogan and in the case of misinformation about covid but more broadly that if those pieces of information which aren't factually true are given a platform and are not adequately challenged, they then just get the platform without any of their downside. but i intend to challenge _ without any of their downside. but i intend to challenge them from a position of fact and truth. your programme — position of fact and truth. your programme is _ position of fact and truth. your programme is also _ position of fact and truth. your programme is also going - position of fact and truth. your programme is also going to . position of fact and truth. your programme is also going to be on sky news australia and fox nation, the sister network fox news, do you think sky news australia and fox news always counter claims, theories, . .. news always counter claims, theories,... i news always counter claims, theories.---_ news always counter claims, theories,... . ., ., , , .,~ theories,... i am not here to speak for them- — theories,... i am not here to speak for them- i— theories,... i am not here to speak for them- i am _ theories,... i am not here to speak for them. i am responsible - theories,... i am not here to speak for them. i am responsible for - theories,... i am not here to speak for them. i am responsible for my. for them. i am responsible for my show and i have had no pressure from any of my various employers to have any of my various employers to have any stance about anything. i can only speakfor any stance about anything. i can only speak for my show. that would be like getting due to defend every show at the bbc, every present when the bbc, i think that is a different —— ridiculous thing for me to do. all of them, in my opinion, have a right to their opinions, and is right to their opinions, and is right that people like you and others challenge those opinions. but don't we get into a problematic space? you have talked about the importance of your show to democracy, upholding certain values, but doesn't democracy in some ways rest on us all having facts, on us all having good information. so on fox nation, tucker carlson also has a programme, a documentary series which floated the idea that the storming of capital was potentially an insidejob organised by the fbi and police insiders. no evidence was offered, is that a helpful contribution? i offered, is that a helpful contribution?— offered, is that a helpful contribution? ., �* ., contribution? i don't agree with him about that. contribution? i don't agree with him about that- at _ contribution? i don't agree with him about that. at what _ contribution? i don't agree with him about that. at what point _ contribution? i don't agree with him about that. at what point do - contribution? i don't agree with him about that. at what point do you - contribution? i don't agree with him | about that. at what point do you get to the stage — about that. at what point do you get to the stage where _ about that. at what point do you get to the stage where someone - about that. at what point do you get to the stage where someone i